Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of houses built in the United Kingdom during 1973.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to increase the rate of municipal house building in 1974.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state separately the number of private and public houses started and completed in 1973 or, if not yet available, his estimate for that year ; if he will give the comparable figures for each of the preceding five years ; what steps he proposes to increase the programmes in both private and public sectors ; and if he will make a statement on the future of the housing programme.

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current rate of house building.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what, at the latest date, are the figures for house building, public and private, for 1973 ; and what are the comparative figures for 1972.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were completed in 1973 both in the public and private sectors ; and

how this compares with the previous five years.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): The latest house building figures, to the end of November 1973, were published on 31st December and are in the Library, as are copies of Housing and Construction Statistics which contain figures for previous years. Figures for the whole of 1973 are to be published on 31st January.
The Government have never placed any restriction on the number of houses a local authority may build. The changes in contracting practice which I announced on 20th December should result in more tenders and keener competition for public sector housing. Housing is exempt from the reductions in public expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December. This again illustrates the high priority which the Government wish to be given to house building.
As the House knows, agreement has been reached between the Government and the Building Societies Association about the establishment of a joint advisory committee and also about the introduction of a scheme to help first-time purchasers. We are maintaining close contact with the Building Societies Association about the availability of mortgage finance.

Mr. Cox: In view of that lengthy reply, would it not have been better for the Minister to have stated the figures? Is he not aware that housing completions last year were the worst for 20 years? Does he realise that the electorate will be able to see at first hand the utter incompetence of the Government, while those figures will continue to mean for people living in my constituency and many others the absolute human suffering that they have to endure to find somewhere to live? Is housing to be given priority, or is this to be another issue from which the Government will run away?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Member asked me why I did not give the figures. I did not do so because I do not have them for 1973. I have already told the House that the figures will be published on 31st January. When they are published, no doubt the hon. Member will wish to table a Question in February, when I should look forward to answering him.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recall that when we last had a severe economic crisis house building was severely hit? I refer to 1968. Will he ensure that in future such difficulties do not fall on the house building industry? Will he attempt to have a rolling programme for housing to ensure that it continues to maintain a high priority?

Mr. Channon: As I told my hon. Friend—I am sure he agrees—housing is exempt from reductions in public expenditure. That shows the high priority which the Government attach to house building, in both the public and the private sectors. The Government will take every possible step to try to help house building during the present difficult situation, but it would be misleading the House to pretend that it can be wholly exempt from the situation presently confronting the country.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister admit that the Government cannot blame the miners for the collapse of the building programme? Council house building is the lowest since pre-war and it should be stressed that many local authorities, including Manchester, are now forced to offer 13¾ per cent. per annum on short-term loans and that for building firms there is an even higher rate of interest. What will the Minister do to stop the further reduction in the housing programme which will result from this factor? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nothing."]

Mr. Channon: The most important thing that any of us can do to try to maintain the momentum of the house building sector, which I believe both sides of the House are genuinely anxious to achieve, is to create a situation in which it will be possible for the essential materials to be provided and so make it possible for people to work to achieve the desired number of houses that we all want.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that we have now had 15 months' operation of the Housing Finance Act, which was introduced with the theme that more houses would be built as a result of the increased rents which the Government sponsored? Is he further aware that what we have seen is the worst housing slump in 20 years, with £320 million being put into the pockets of Harry Hyams and other

property speculators and with 11 per cent. mortgage rates of interest—and that that cannot be blamed on to the miners?

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Member wishes to take that line, let me give him the facts. In our first three years, over 1 million houses have been completed and nearly 1 million improvement grants have been given to enable people living in obsolete accommodation to get decent homes. That means that, in the first three years of this Government, nearly 2 million decent homes have been provided, either by new homes or by improving older homes. That is nearly half a million more than when the last Government were in power.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: While one recognises all that the Government have done and are doing in this important sector, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that results could be even better, particularly in rural areas, if planning permission were more readily and quickly forthcoming? Will his Ministry circulate local authorities again to encourage local planning committees to be less obstructive in this matter?

Mr. Channon: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, new planning guidelines were recently issued which I am sure local authorities will wish to follow. My right hon. and learned Friend last week received the interim report by Mr. George Dobry. My hon. and gallant Friend's views will certainly be noted in this important matter.

Mr. Horam: Is it not remarkable that, when we have a Labour Government at Westminster, a state of affairs which may not be too long delayed, and Tory councils throughout the land, we have good private housing and terrible public housing figures, and that when the situation is reversed, as it is today, we have housing figures which are saved from total disaster only by reasonable public housing figures? I wonder, is there a moral in this?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was complaining just now about public sector figures. I am very glad to have the hon. Member's support in that respect.

Mr. Kinsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather coincidental that,


since we have had Socialist-controlled local authorities, we have had such deplorable rates of building?

Mr. Channon: I think it is remarkable that the Labour Party, when it was out of power in the local authorities, said that it would build many more houses. Then it came into office, and it is now seeking every excuse for its lamentable failure. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Greville Janner) wishes to ask a supplementary question, he must rise. I thought he had a Question on the Order Paper which was being answered with Question No. 1.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that in most of the large cities large blocks of offices remain empty at the same time as housing waiting lists are getting longer and longer? Second, will he give an absolute undertaking that the house building figures for 1973 will be published on 31st January and not get lost, like other figures?

Mr. Channon: I know of no other figures that have been lost. I have already said that the house building figures will be published on 31st January. That is the practice which has been followed under successive administrations. The subject of office building raises different issues and my right hon. and learned Friend has already made a statement about that matter.

Mr. Arthur Jones: My hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of supply of building materials. I think general opinion has it that the general success of the Government's improvement and conversion policy has led to shortages. Is not this a difficulty with which the building industry is having to cope?

Mr. Channon: That has certainly been a problem, as has been the obtaining of skilled labour in certain areas because of the great success of the improvement grant policy. It remains a fact, as I said a few moments ago, that nearly 2 million decent homes have been provided, either by new building or by improvement grants. That is a great deal more than was achieved in the previous three years.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order. Was your reference just now to my putting a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, an indication that Question No. 2 was taken together with Question No. 1, or that I could put a supplementary to Question No. 1?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister said that together with Question No. 1 he was answering Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and 12.

Mr. Janner: I did not hear that, Mr. Speaker. In that case, on Question No. 2, is it not correct that, dealing specifically with public sector housing, the figures are approaching an all-time low and that this is yet another disgraceful example of the Government's total failure to protect the worst-off sections of the community from the price rises which they assured the electorate, particularly in Leicester—the Prime Minister himself did so during the election—they would hold down? What do the Government propose to do about public housing, if they are given any time to do it anyway?

Mr. Channon: The hon. and learned Member is wrong and he should be fair about this. [An HON. MEMBER: "He will not be."] He should be ; whether he will be is a matter for the House to decide. In spite of the tendering difficulties which applied throughout most of the year, the number of dwellings in tenders accepted by local authorities in England and Wales in the first 11 months of last year was 28 per cent. up on the corresponding period of 1972. I did my best before Christmas to announce new tendering and contractual procedures, notably the reduction for a trial period from two years to one for firm price tenders. I think that that will have an effect on local authority housing and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes the fact that numbers in tenders have risen so considerably.

Mr. Crosland: The Minister is certainly not being fair: he is evading every question that has been put to him. Is he aware—indeed, he must be—that extrapolation of the figures for the first 11 months of last year shows that the total of completions last year will almost certainly be under 300,000? In which previous year were house building completions under 300,000? Second, in view


of all his claims about what the Government have done—no Government cut in the house building programme was necessary, since it is falling anyway—will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in almost every part of the country now, in contrast to two years ago, homelessness and waiting lists are increasing and that in housing the whole of the Government's policy is in total ruins?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with him on that last point. Nor do I think I am evading the questions that hon. Members are asking. I do not choose to speculate about what figures will be released for the whole year, because I do not know what the completions will be. The whole House will be able to form its judgment on 31st January when the figures are published. [HON. MEMBERS: "Evading."] I cannot evade about figures that are not available yet. In normal times, no hon. Member would ask me to comment on figures which had not yet been provided. How can I possibly do so?
What is important is to have both an adequate supply of new building and the improvement of older dwellings. All I am pointing out is the remarkable achievement under the present Government of 2 million homes having been provided. Of course, Labour Members always seek opportunities to criticise and carp. Let them face the fact that that is half a million more than they achieved in their last three years of office.

Mr. Crosland: Let me rephrase my question. The Minister knows what the completions were for the first 11 months of last year. Can he tell us in what previous year the figure of completions for the first 11 months was lower than the figure for last year?

Mr. Channon: If one takes the figure of the first 11 months for completions and improvement grants approved one sees that the figures for the completions in the first 11 months of 1973 were 270,000. The figures for improvement grants approved were 342,000. The House will be interested——

Mr. Kaufman: Twister.

Mr. Channon: Those are decent houses being provided by the provision

of improvement grants. When the Labour Party introduced the 1969 Act, it seemed to be in favour of improvement grants ; now, Labour Members jeer at the achievement in that field. The figures mean that, in the first 11 months of last year, over 600,000 people had better housing conditions as a result of either new house building or the approval of improvement grants.

Roads and Public Transport

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards road building and public transport in the light of the latest developments in the energy shortage.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Judd: In view of the on-going and long-term energy crisis, which is likely to be with us for all time, would not the Minister agree that the time has come to call a halt to superfluous road building and to use the public funds thus saved to finance effective and efficient public transport and other essential social services covering the needs of the elderly, the sick and children enjoying education?

Mr. Peyton: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about a continuing energy problem, but the Government are already supporting public transport to a marked extent. Also, roads will be needed for some time ahead. The hon. Gentleman should not be led into too great exaggerations.

Mrs. Knight: In the context of the present energy shortage, what instructions has my right hon. Friend given concerning lighting on motorways? Is he aware that it is extremely irritating for householders who have been stringently following the rules to find that on the motorways the scene looks like the Blackpool illuminations?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, I agree that it is irritating for those who are trying to economise in their own homes to see massive illuminations on motorways. I have cut them down considerably, and I did so again last week. At the same time, I am sure my hon. Friend will bear in mind the need for lighting at dangerous junctions to avert accidents.

Mr. Mulley: When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement about the future of British Railways, I understood that he proposed early this year to produce a White Paper dealing with wider transport questions. Should I infer from his answer today that the White Paper will be further delayed, or does he intend to issue the White Paper during this month, as I understood to be the intention?

Mr. Peyton: Any White Paper has to take full account of the great change in the energy situation, so there will inevitably be a delay. I prefer to wait until there has been clarification of the energy problem.

50 mph Speed Limit

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons were killed and seriously injured on the roads in the first month after the introduction of a maximum speed limit of 50 mph ; and how these figures compare with the same period in the previous year.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on how road accident figures have been affected by the imposition of the 50 mph speed limit.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish facts and figures showing the effect on the incidence of road accidents of the fuel shortage and the 50 miles per hour speed limit.

Mr. Peyton: There are indications that there have been fewer accidents since the 50 mph limit was introduced but the amount of traffic has also fallen. When the first accident statistics are available in March I will make a statement.

Mr. Chapman: Recognising that there are other considerations, such as any decrease there may be in the volume of traffic, and weather conditions, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that it is obvious that the 50 mph limit has saved lives as well as petrol consumption? Does he not think it reasonable that the 50 mph limit should be more rigorously enforced and permanently kept?

Mr. Peyton: Enforcement is a matter not for me but for the police or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. While undoubtedly, as I said in my answer, there are indications that numbers of accidents and casualties have fallen during this period, that can be because there has been less traffic. I remind my hon. Friend that the 50 mph limit was imposed for fuel reasons. When regulations of this sort are made, it is important that the reasons for making them should be honoured and that there should be no confusion. People have co-operated very well with the 50 mph limit and I should not like to think that advantage would be taken of them to make it permanent.

Mr. Spriggs: Has the right hon. Gentleman been made aware of the serious bunching on motorways because of the 50 mph speed limit? Will he take note that my opinion is that the sooner we return to the 70 mph limit the better?

Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said. The 50 mph speed limit is undoubtedly responsible for an increase in bunching, which is in itself undesirable.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the factors in the reduction in the number of accidents is that when a speed limit is imposed and enforced people make much greater use of their rear view mirrors in case there is a police car behind? Is not the use of rear view mirrors a major factor in reducing the number of overtaking accidents?

Mr. Peyton: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. I can only commend, as he would wish, the more widespread use of this very effective device.

Motor Cycles and Mopeds (Accidents)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now have discussions with representatives of the motor cycle trade regarding road accidents affecting motor cyclists and moped riders.

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hamling: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that effective reply.

Mr. Peyton: I am only to anxious to return the hon. Gentleman's thanks.

Warehouses (London)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy regarding granting permission for the location of warehouses in the Greater London area.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): The primary responsibility for dealing with planning applications for warehouses rests with the local planning authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend decides only those cases which come to him on appeal or which he calls in because they raise issues of more than local importance. Each case is decided on its merits having regard to the initial development plan for Greater London and other material considerations.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent London constituencies have been much concerned over the past few years at the exodus of industry from Greater London? Is he further aware that the practice is creeping in of the pulling down of industrial buildings which once employed thousands of people and for men and women to be thrown out of work? Warehouses, which employ very few people, are erected in place of the industrial buildings and this causes congestion of roads. If this practice is not arrested, the problem will become serious. Can examination be made of an alternative policy?

Mr. Eyre: The control of industrial development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I remind the House that the Greater London Development Plan which is before my right hon. and learned Friend includes a statement of policy on industrial and commercial employment. Complex considerations are involved. The draft modifications which the Government are minded to make to the plan following consideration of the report of the panel of inquiry are still being compiled.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend discover from the Greater London Council whether its chief complaint is that there are too many jobs in London with a consequent

difficulty in filling them, or too few jobs? If it is the former, we need not be worried about the loss of jobs and the substitution of an activity that requires fewer hands to do the work. The GLC seems to want to have it both ways all the time in whatever manner will cause needless embarrassment to the Government.

Mr. Eyre: I cannot answer for the GLC, but in recent days we have been considering the housing measures we can bring forward to assist the people who are working in the London area.

Maplin

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects the proposed Maplin airport to be operational.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I have informed the House that the earliest practicable opening date is 1982 and this is still the basis of planning.

Mr. Moate: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in view of the changed energy and economic circumstances, it is widely expected that the Government will cancel the Maplin project completely, using the forthcoming review as a pretext for doing so? Would it not be better for the Government to demonstrate that they, too, are willing to sacrifice some of their pet public spending projects and to end the uncertainty by cancelling the Maplin project now?

Mr. Rippon: No, I do not think that follows. Certainly recent events will be taken into account in the report which will in due course be brought before the House.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Government have resources available for the development of airports, will they look more favourably at the development of provincial airports, particularly in Scotland, and do away with the ridiculous anomaly whereby travellers from all parts of this small island have to make their intercontinental flights through London?

Mr. Rippon: Certainly. These are not conflicting claims.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the basis for the Maplin decision was the


protection of the environment? I trust that is still his intention.

Mr. Rippon: The House agreed when we were discussing Cublington that Maplin was the environmental solution.

Mr. Lipton: In supporting the representations made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), may I ask the Minister to bear in mind the recent remarks made by the Governor of the Bank of England to the effect that we shall be in a period of austerity until 1984? Should not this project go by the board at least until 1984?

Mr. Rippon: It will be all the more necessary for us to make our living in the world.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend instead cancel the Channel Tunnel project and use the funds thus saved for bringing forward the planning for Maplin by several years?

Mr. Rippon: That is a suitable matter for discussion when the report is published, but there is no reason why both projects should not go forward.

Mr. Crosland: May I reassure the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that it will be only a matter of weeks before the next Labour Government cancel Maplin?

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now list those parties with which he has had consultations on the Maplin review being undertaken by his Department.

Mr. Rippon: The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority are assisting in the study at working level and the British Airways Board has been asked for information. Other bodies will be brought into consultation as the study proceeds.

Mr. Adley: In view of the ornithological implications of the project, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend is able to differentiate between a lame duck and a dead duck?

Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend will be able to make whatever observations he wishes when the report is brought before the House.

Mr. Allason: Does the list include those local authorities which are at present seriously affected by the existing airports in the South-East?

Mr. Rippon: The consultations will be wide and will include the local authorities. As I indicated to the House on 23rd October, it is intended that there should be a wide-ranging and comprehensive study in which everybody's views will be taken into account.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss fully with the Department of Trade and Industry the implications from the balance of payments point of view, because it seems that few airlines that presently bring foreign exchange to this country will wish to use Maplin? Furthermore, will he do everything he can to encourage the development of quiet airliners as these will be valuable in the export sphere, whereas the same cannot be said of Maplin?

Mr. Rippon: Yes.

Industrialised Building

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of houses built in 1972 was factory-built ; and if he will take steps to encourage the construction industries to make better use of the technique.

Mr. Channon: Twenty-seven per cent. of houses completed in the public sector in 1972 were factory built. I hope that both local authorities and private house builders will consider very carefully how far industrialised building will help to answer their problems. It is, of course, for sponsors to develop and sell their systems.

Mr. Steel: Is it the Government's intention to try to increase that percentage in future? Is that part of Government policy? Does the Minister recognise that, particularly for small housing authorities, a wide range of choice in the design of factory-built houses would be welcomed?

Mr. Channon: That depends on the local authority and on the circumstances of each particular case. I hope that anyone planning a housing development will consider industrialised building, as he would any other possible way of achieving better value for money and getting


houses built more quickly. However, it is a more complicated position than that and situations vary very much.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Will my hon. Friend consider the sponsorship of schemes for industrialised building? Is he aware that the lack of this bedevilled arrangements previously when 200 to 300 firms in the United Kingdom, at tremendous cost to themselves, had developed industrialised schemes which did not get off the ground as well as they would have done if the Government—this applies to the previous administration too—had sponsored low-rise industrial development?

Mr. Channon: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend says. I hope the House realises that a great deal of the economies resulting from industrialised building often arise from the substitution of labour by cheap fuel, and in the present situation it is not absolutely apparent that this would necessarily be right.

Mr. McNamara: How many houses does the 27 per cent. represent?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman must await the figures on 31st January.

Manchester Underground Railway Link

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Manchester Piccadilly-Victoria railway scheme.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the answer which he gave to the House shortly before we rose for the Christmas Recess he said that, provided the total policy of the Manchester Pice-Vic scheme came within acceptable estimates, the Government would endorse it? Is he further aware that since then the strategic plan for the North-West has become more widely available and in it this project is considered urgent and immediate? While regretting the delay and the fact that it is not now to be in the programme until 1975–76, may I ask the Minister to confirm that grant aid for design throughout 1974–75 will still be available?

Mr. Peyton: Grant aid on design has been available. Before committing myself further I would prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman. Beyond that, I have nothing to add to my statement.

Sir R. Cary: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would agree that the completion of the scheme will bring great facilities and amenities to the area although in its opening years it may not be too profitable?

Mr. Peyton: I have been liberally informed of the enthusiastic support for this project in Manchester, particularly by my hon. Friend. I have no doubt about its importance. I assure my hon. Friend that the scheme has not been judged on strict economics or anything of that kind. I hope that in future it will make a useful contribution to Manchester's problems. In the end the decision will be for Manchester.

Mr. Mulley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread disappointment that his reversal of track seems to have created? Does he appreciate that these local authorities have not gone in for expensive urban road plans and that it has been noted that when they come along with a public transport solution they encounter great difficulties? Will he be more positive in encouraging public transport projects of this kind?

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman is very unhappy sometimes, and I am awfully sorry for him, because he draws terribly wrong conclusions. This is one of them.

Mr. Fidler: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many people on both sides of the House and in all parties in the North-West are extremely grateful to him for the way in which he has finally responded to the representations made to get permission for this scheme to go ahead within the limitations he has announced?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend's words are gratefully received.

Council Housing Rent

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Housing Finance Act so as to relieve council tenants of paying all rent


throughout any period when their homes are being improved under the provisions of the Housing Acts.

Mr. Eyre: No, Sir. Local authorities already have adequate powers to meet this situation.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency, because of the sheer incompetence of the private enterprise company concerned, constituents are having to live in barn-like, freezing conditions because improvements are taking two and three times as long as they should? Is he further aware that, although Manchester Corporation has relieved these people of the obligation to pay rent for the period during which it seemed likely that the repairs would take place, it is unable to do so for the extra period? Will he now give Manchester Corporation specific authority to permit tenants to live rent-free during any period when improvements are taking place? Will he underwrite that guarantee with a formal undertaking?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate that there can be serious practical difficulties for tenants in certain circumstances. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties about the local authority. Before a fair rent has been made a council can reimburse any costs actually incurred by tenants or grant them a special rebate. After a fair rent determination the council may determine a lower fair rent for such time as the condition is affected by the carrying out of improvement works. It follows that the local authority has power to safeguard the interests of the tenant.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that I have been informed by the Greater London Council that it is impeded by the Housing Finance Act from making a reduction in rent when, for example, the heating in a house breaks down and a heating element is included in the rent? Is he aware that the GLC says that the same thing applies when there is severe damp in the house or when such facilities as the water supply break down? Will he confirm that in such circumstances the legislation passed by a Conservative Government prevents a local authority from reducing the rent to take account of the period when such facilities are denied?

Mr. Eyre: I will certainly look into this. This is the first I have heard of the problem. I think there must be some misunderstanding. If a fair rent has not been determined, and that may be the procedural stage in the case of the houses the hon. Member has mentioned, a special rebate can be made by the local authority.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister look into the serious situation which arises, not just in Manchester but throughout all local authorities, when building firms have taken on big improvement contracts for council houses and the tenants are finding it an absolute disaster? Is he aware that such firms are taking months to do the job and often there are serious defects for which the firms should be prosecuted? Will he look into this because it is causing tremendous misery?

Mr. Eyre: I will certainly look into it. I repeat that it seems to be the position that local authorities have practical means of helping tenants who are in difficulties because of such circumstances.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Rent Rebates

Mr. Gurden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, on the latest evidence available to him, he is satisfied with the operation of the rent rebates system.

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gurden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham the total cash received from rents has fallen by £277,000 as a result of the Housing Finance Act and that the total of rent rebates has increased from £700,000 to £2,250,000? Does he agree that the Housing Finance Act has certainly not added to the cost of living in Birmingham?

Mr. Channon: I am not at all surprised to hear those figures. They show, as the Government have always maintained in this House, with my hon. Friend's support, that the Housing Finance Act has done a great deal to help those on low incomes.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is the Minister aware that the figures given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) are "phoney" and include the rebates given to supplementary benefit cases, which do not amount to a genuine reduction in rents? Is he further aware that the total amount of increase in rents is considerable, several times as much as the amount granted in rebates?

Mr. Channon: The figures in my possession show that the number of council house tenants receiving rent rebates last year was six times greater than before the passing of the Act. There were fewer than 300.000 people receiving rebates in March 1972. In May 1973 there were 1¾ million, and they were receiving rebates at an average of £1·85. I think that that proves what I am saying.

Mr. Kinsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) are not "phoney" but are taken from the Labour council's own statistics? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that rent rebates are brought to the attention of people now on a three-day week who will find the Government's services extremely useful at the present time?

Mr. Channon: Yes. I am told that more than 20,000 new applications for rent rebates in Birmingham have been granted since the Act became law, as well as 2,000 new applications for rent allowances. I am sure that this scale of increase is being experienced in many other parts of the country.

Mr. Jay: The Minister will recall that following my letter he has reorganised the system of paying rebates in cases where both rent rebate and supplementary benefit are available. Is he satisfied that everyone will get the highest payment to which he is entitled? That has not been the position hitherto.

Mr. Channon: I cannot pretend that everyone will do so. Certainly it is my hope that everyone will get the rent rebate or allowance to which he is entitled. In terms of rent rebates the figures are satisfactory, but, as the House knows, I am still not satisfied about the take-up of rent allowances.

Housing Subsidy

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of subsidy paid on local authority housing in each of the last five years ; and how much is expected to be paid in 1973–74.

Mr. Channon: The total amounts of Exchequer subsidy paid on local authority housing in England in each of the last five years, and the estimated outturn for 1973–74 are as follows: in 1968–69, £101 million ; 1969–70, £117 million ; 1970–71, £148 million ; 1971–72, £172 million: 1972–73, £240 million ; and in 1973–74, £290 million.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it strange that the subsidy should be going up as the house building programme is the lowest on record in the last 20 years? Does he recall that when the present Government were first elected the first White Paper they produced on new patterns of public expenditure had the deliberate intention of saving £200 million on housing subsidies? Does he not think it obscene that, at a time when public house building is at its lowest for 20 years, there should be at least three senior Government Ministers speculating in land and making colossal profits out of improvement grants resulting from legislation produced by their own Government? Is not that obscene and indefensible?

Mr. Channon: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's imputations, which are all too typical of his conduct in the House. What may have disconcerted the hon. Gentleman and led to his outburst is the fact that the subsidies have very nearly trebled between 1968 and 1973–74.

Mr. Woodhouse: Can my hon. Friend say whether his recent relaxation of the rigid rules on fixed-price contracts for public authority building apply to local authority housing, since this has been one of the principal constraints on local authority building in recent years?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I hope that the changes in the contractual procedures which I announced just before


Christmas will have this effect. It is something which both local authorities and builders have been asking for some time. Now that the change has been made, I hope they will find it of benefit to them.

Housing Land (London)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the land made available for local authority housing by outer London to inner London boroughs from 1971 to 1973.

Mr. Eyre: I regret that the detailed information requested is not available. However, the help which outer London provides to inner London should not be evaluated simply in terms of the amount of land made available. Such help often takes the form of increased programmes by outer London boroughs or making available more lettings in their own properties for the benefit of inner London.

Mr. Davis: When will the Government stop prevaricating on this issue? Is not the Minister aware that Tory councils like Bromley and Richmond have deliberately frustrated the essential needs of inner London stress areas like Hackney and Brent? Does he not know that this is the only way of dealing with the housing problem in these stress areas? When will he do something to get these outer London Tory councils to act?

Mr. Eyre: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Action Group on London Housing, which, as he knows, includes experienced local government representatives from both major parties in London, undertook last year a series of visits to a cross-section of London authorities in both inner and outer London to discuss the assistance required and what could be made available. The group recorded in its interim report that there was an increasing awareness among outer London boroughs of the necessity to provide further assistance to inner London and a greater willingness to do so.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Socialist-controlled Harrow Council is equally against doing anything along these lines because of the limited amount of building land available and because it believes that the real emphasis

should be that people like the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) should be more concerned with the redevelopment of dockland than with dealing with the limited land available in the outer boroughs?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend makes a very important point in emphasising the contribution that the use of land in dockland could make to the solution of London's housing problems.

Mr. Leonard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one outer London borough which has made a major offer of housing land to the GLC is the London borough of Havering, a Labour-controlled authority? Will he try to ensure that Tory outer London boroughs which have more land available than Havering make a comparable contribution?

Mr. Eyre: According to the action group's survey, enough land is available to sustain the likely level of new house building in London until the end of the decade, but positive action is needed to bring that land into use.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to those disgraceful and inadequate replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what approach has been made to him by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea concerning the proposed disposal to private developers of housing land that had been compulsorily acquired ; and what action he proposes.

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Member is presumably referring to the site which was the subject of his recent letter to my hon. Friend. No formal approach has been made to the Department about this, but I understand that disposal to private developers is not contemplated.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: If disposal to private developers is not contemplated, that will be extremely welcome news. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal concerned land in an area of desperate housing need from which low income families had been cleared? If the matter comes before him, will he ensure that he does not give any such approval?

Mr. Eyre: Consent is not necessary in this case, but in areas like Kensington there are people—for example, school teachers and local government employees—who are squeezed between rich property and council and housing association rented development, and it seems sensible that the council should in these circumstances provide houses for purchase by those people and so promote a healthy social mix.

Thermal Insulation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now allow improvements to thermal insulation and double glazing on existing property to qualify for grants, in the interests of long-term savings of national energy resources.

Mr. Channon: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) on 25th October—[Vol. 861, c. 651]—improvement grant for thermal insulation may be given, at the discretion of the local authority, as part of a full scheme of improvement to bring older dwellings up to modern standards.

Mr. Rost: Is the Government aware that this is becoming a matter of priority in view of the fact that thermal insulation standards in this country are about the worst in Europe, since only about one-quarter of the heat put into houses is used to heat them, the remainder being wasted? In view of the need to conserve energy and to save hundreds of millions of pounds on the balance of payments, should we not give this matter top priority?

Mr. Channon: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's views. Provisions are being made in the Health and Safety at Work Bill to amend the building regulations, and it is intended to make new standards of thermal insulation compulsory for the future.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As there is widespread feeling about this, can the Minister assure us that it will be possible to include it within standard grant or other comparable procedures without delay?

Mr. Channon: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await publication of the Bill.

Rents and House Prices

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is now the average level of council rents compared with June 1970.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average increases in the price of building land and of houses, in the rents of both council houses and of privately rented houses and in the cost of mortgage repayments since June 1970.

Mr. Channon: Rebated rents of council housing in England and Wales rose by £l·04p weekly over the 3½-year period between April 1970 and October 1973. Comparison of the average for 1972 shows that private unfurnished rents were 37p per week higher and gross monthly mortgage payments £2·40p higher. For private housing land transactions reported in the first half of 1973 there was an increase of 185 per cent. and for private houses bought in the third quarter 108 per cent.

Mr. Golding: I thank the Minister for that information, which I am sure will appear in many of our election addresses. Is he aware that many tenants are looking forward to the repeal of the Housing Finance Act so that the continuing increases being imposed upon them might come to a rapid end?

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman is proposing to write an election address in the near future, I hope he will also include reference to the fact that, unless it is intended to take special measures to prevent it, the repeal of the Housing Finance Act would also mean the ending of the special rent rebate help which has assisted so many people on low incomes.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: How do those figures compare with the 70 per cent. average increase in rents under the previous administration? Is it not a fact, hotly disputed at Question Time last month, that house and land prices are now falling?

Mr. Channon: On the best figures available to me—I have no official figures available at the moment—it is certainly a fact that in recent weeks house and land prices have been falling. I am surprised that Labour Members should laugh at that. They complained


bitterly enough when prices went up. I should have thought they would cheer when they came down. I hope that when the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) is writing his election address, if that is what he has in mind, he will point out that under the Labour administration rents increased by 68 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister delivers his answers either very quietly or very quickly. I did not catch the percentage increase in the cost of mortgage repayments. That is a serious matter. Does he feel that due note should be taken of all this dreadful and inflationary information when the election takes place? Since large profits have been made, will he tell us whether the Conservative Party has accepted or will accept donations from grateful property developers and speculators in 1974?

Mr. Channon: What will be very welcome to the Government is the fact that the hon. Gentleman has announced his determination to support us in trying to defeat inflation. He asked me to repeat the figures for mortgage repayments. Figures derived from the Family Expenditure Survey show that the average monthly repayment in 1970 was £14·50 compared with £16·90 in 1972.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that the correct figure for the increase in mortgage repayments on an average house for sale between 1970 and 1973 is 120 per cent.? Does he agree that one major way of contributing towards counter-inflation policies would be to stop the obscene speculation in land—[Interruption.]—Yes, obscene—and that a lead could be given by the Chairman of the Conservative Party, who at the moment is negotiating a payment of £10 million on the sale of 150 acres in Buckinghamshire?

Mr. Channon: The House will not expect me to comment on the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I find it astonishing that an hon. Member should advance that argument from the Opposition Front Bench. I think that standards in the House deteriorate when personal attacks of that kind are made. I should think that is a view that might be held

by hon. Members on both sides of the House about insinuations of that kind.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced a considerable increase in taxation on land profits, and I think that had the general approval of the House.

Road Projects

Sir Robin Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will announce the date of starting work on the Malton bypass on the A64.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the new financial retrenchment will have on the M18 and M62 into Hull and on the Humber Bridge.

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of road projects in the East Midlands and in the Kettering parliamentary constituency, respectively, which were planned for 1974 and 1975 and which will now be cancelled or deferred.

Mr. Peyton: Work on existing major road contracts including that for the Humber Bridge will continue. It is too early to say what the detailed implications for future schemes will be.

Sir Robin Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will naturally be disappointment at his inability to fulfil the promise made by his hon. Friend on 14th November? In reaching his decision, will he bear in mind that the York bypass scheme is due to start this year and will accentuate the problems in Malton? Unless the two schemes are synchronised there will be a standstill not only of traffic but of development in the whole area between Malton and Scarborough.

Mr. Peyton: I am aware of the need for the Malton bypass, but if a major cut in expenditure is made it is important that the necessary adjustments to the road programme should be made with the utmost care. I will bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister take into account that people from South Yorkshire find great difficulty in getting to the East Coast for their


holidays, especially to places like Scarborough, due to the roads being congested and of a low standard? Will he do what he can to ensure that there is a better road to the East Coast for people in South Yorkshire so that they can get there quickly?

Mr. Peyton: Considerable progress has been made in the North-East, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I acknowledge that we have not yet got a perfect road system. I hope that we shall make good progress towards one.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Does my right lion. Friend accept that not only holiday makers, which is bad enough, but developing industries in Scarborough and Whitby are suffering very much? This year the queues I have seen outside Malton extending in both directions have been absolutely intolerable.

Mr. Peyton: Yes. I should not seek to deny what my hon. Friend said. I realise the need for an adequate road system.

Mr. McNamara: When exactly are we to know about the details of the Government's cut-back? This information is of tremendous importance in terms of local planning in the areas concerned. It is essential that we should know the precise date when we can expect the Government to make their decision—and we hope that it will be before 7th February.

Mr. Peyton: I accept everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I want to make as much progress as I can with such a statement.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Will the deferment of the East Midlands coast route involve the cessation of the necessary planning requirements and possible land acquisitions, or will the planning work still go ahead?

Mr. Peyton: There will be no interruption in the planning, as far as I know ; but I should like to write to my hon. Friend on that point.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Conlan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will authorise local authorities to receive and consider applications for upward revision

of improvement grants previously approved where estimates are increased because of higher costs of materials.

Mr. Eyre: This is a matter of interpretation of the Housing Act 1969 and is the responsibility of individual local authorities in relation to particular cases. My right hon. and learned Friend takes the view, on advice, that once a grant has been approved it cannot be subsequently increased to take account of rising prices. He is, however, considering the matter in connection with the forthcoming legislation arising from the Government's review of policy on older housing.

Mr. Conlan: Will the hon. Gentleman understand that that will not meet the immediate problems? People have already received approvals, and because of rising costs they want upward revisions. If this decision is not changed very quickly it will mean either that the owner will have to bear an unfair proportion of the cost or that the improvement will not be carried out. Furthermore, will the hon. Gentleman consider changing the date of June of this year, when improvements have to be completed for grant purposes?

Mr. Eyre: As the hon. Gentleman knows, when it comes to a matter of law one cannot make exceptions to meet hard cases, however deserving they may be. It is sad that the interpretation of the 1969 Act should have produced that result. I cannot anticipate the contents of the Bill, but it will be presented to the House as soon as possible.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that the Government are considering the position with regard to older houses, but I am a little puzzled by that in view of the fact that most improvement grants go to older houses. In a way we are getting what is required, but because of rising prices people who have an agreement for improvement grants should have the increased costs taken into consideration. I want a clearer statement than has been made so far.

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend knows that there has been a great concentration of resources on improving older houses. The programme has been very successful


and has produced great social advantages in towns such as that represented by my hon. Friend.
As I have said, I cannot anticipate the precise contents of the Bill, but my right hon. and learned Friend is most anxious that this measure, which will improve the machinery for dealing with a continuing programme for improving elder houses, is introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Blenkinsop: May we have a clear assurance that the Bill will be introduced before the next election?

Mr. Eyre: I have said that it will be introduced into the House as soon as possible in the coming Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the possibility of Parliament being dissolved in the near future, I rise to ask what is the position about Questions which appeared on the Order Paper yesterday and today and have not been answered. My Question No. 279 yesterday refers to important statistics of coal stocks. If Parliament is to be dissolved in the near future, I hope that the Government will still be able to answer my Question either before then or afterwards. In any event, I think that this matter may be of substance in relation to other Questions, and I hope that you will be able to tell us what is the procedure on this.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point of order?

Dame Irene Ward: No. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I must try to deal with one point of order at a time.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has asked me to rule on a hypothetical situation. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me considerable notice of his intention to raise this matter. I have been able to make certain inquiries, and I am told that, whichever party is in power, it is the practice for Departments to try to clear the decks, so far as is humanly possible, before Dissolution.
I now call the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) to raise her point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My point of order relates to whether I shall receive from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State an answer to my Question No. 40 which refers to the Kielder Dam. He told me that he would answer the Question, and, as he said that he would answer it, I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady, with her experience of the House, knows that that is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — EEC MINISTERIAL MEETINGS

3.35 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the work of the Council of Ministers this week.
The Council of Foreign Ministers met on Monday and Tuesday and was concerned primarily with regional policy and energy policy. Once again it did not prove possible to reach a unanimous conclusion on the Regional Development Fund. Recognising the urgency of reaching a conclusion, it was agreed that there would be a further Council meeting on 30th January to deal with this subject. We shall continue to press vigorously for a satisfactory outcome. Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance, as agreed at the Paris Summit, to the establishment of a fund of substantial size and applied to the needy regions of all the Community countries.
The House will be aware that progress on regional policy is linked with the adoption of a second stage of economic and monetary union and a Community energy policy. The Community decided, however, to accept President Nixon's invitation to a meeting of the major oil-consuming countries.
Finally, I should mention that the Council of Agriculture Ministers, meeting on Monday, did not agree to a French proposal that there should be an immediate 10 per cent. increase in the Community guide price for beef and a ban on imports from third countries.

Mr. Shore: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. May I ask whether he is aware that the Opposition are particularly pleased that the Government have accepted President Nixon's invitation to the special conference of oil-consuming countries, because we believe that that is the right forum in which this very important matter, which affects far more countries than those involved in Western Europe, should be discussed? We are also pleased that we have not on this occasion waited, I think often in vain, to speak with one voice in Europe, but have accepted the invitation ourselves as a separate country free and able to speak for Britain at this most important conference.
May I ask the Minister to confirm that the British and French Governments have now more or less abandoned the attempt to form a short-term EEC oil energy policy in favour of unilateral deals of the kind that France has recently made with Saudi Arabia?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what discussion he has had inside the EEC on the most important indirect effects of the vast increase in oil prices? In particular, has there been any serious discussion of balance of payments and currency implications and the many other matters involved?
May I ask whether, in the context of such discussions, the Minister has drawn the attention of his Community colleagues to the special difficulties of this country, facing, as it does, not only the worst balance of payments in our history in 1973 but a still more gruesome prospect in 1974, even before the new burden of oil prices is taken into account? Did the Minister in that context raise again the whole question of Article 108 and the possible derogations from the terms of the Treaty that that opens?
Can the Minister throw a little more light on what has gone wrong in the discussions on a common regional policy? It is obvious that this has a linkage with EMU and energy policy, but does the lack of agreement on a common regional policy stem from an unwillingness of the other countries to go forward with a regional fund until there is agreement on other matters, or does it stem from the British Government's not wishing to go forward with some of the other matters before they get a common regional fund?
In any event, in order to get the matter into its proper perspective can the Minister confirm that what is at stake here is that even if the Commission's proposal for a fund are adopted the benefit to Britain, net of our contribution, over the next three years is not likely to be more than £40 million a year, and that that has to be set against a deterioration of more than £1,000 million in our trade with the countries of the Community?
On the question of beef, we are relieved, indeed, to learn that there has been no agreement on a ban into the Community of cheaper non-Community beef. We would like not only to be assured that the Minister turned down proposals to increase Community prices by 10 per cent. at this special meeting but also to have a categorical promise that in April, when the next major review takes place, he will not accept the proposed increase of 10 per cent. in the price of beef and the proposal to ban imported beef and subsidise exports of Community beef to third countries?

Mr. Davies: On the first point, I am sure that everyone will be of the same opinion as the right hon. Gentleman, that it will be exceedingly useful to have the meeting in Washington that has been proposed by President Nixon. I think, equally, that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is valuable for individual countries, particularly our own, to be able to express their own particular problems, as it is obviously for the Community as a whole to do so, and both of those points are now met.
It is not true that we have abandoned the search for a Community energy policy. On the contrary, the Community—and certainly this country—seeks very definitely to pursue the lines of both a short-term and medium-term energy policy. I will come to the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers of the linkage with regional policy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether matters concerning the economic effects of the problems relating to oil pricing and energy matters generally have been the subject of discussion in the Council of Ministers. Indeed they have. That was already the position


last month when the Finance Ministers met at the same time as the Foreign Ministers of the Community. These matters were then discussed in both those Councils, so they have been under discussion already and are still under continuing analysis.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the special situation of the United Kingdom in relation to problems facing us in terms of energy have been made known to the Community——

Mr. Shore: And the balance of payments.

Mr. Davies: The balance of payments is part of the economic assessment, which is indeed part of the Community's work at present. The special position of each member country has been put forward in relation to the information which the Community is collecting on this subject.
The right hon. Gentleman asked particularly about the link between regional policy and the second stage of economic and monetary union and energy policy. I would simply say that it is not quite as he suggests. The truth is that these three items were taken together by the meeting of Heads of Government and of State in Copenhagen on 14th and 15th December and, indeed, recommendations about conclusions being reached on them by the Council of Ministers were made by that conference. It is, therefore, from that point that they have been linked.
But the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong in suggesting that there is some kind of reserve put forward by any members of the Community about the failure to move forward in energy policy as a factor in their consideration of regional policy. Quite the contrary. Even if they have very different views on what it should contain, all parties agree that regional policy should be settled urgently. That is why a further meeting of the Council of Ministers has been called for 30th January.
On the question of the net benefit of regional policy, the great advantage from the point of view of the Community as a whole and particularly of this country of instituting this policy is not confined only to the first three years, as the right

hon. Gentleman knows full well. The whole object of this operation is that it should be a growing operation with a growing fund and a bigger and bigger effect on the disparities which exist in the Community. It would be both misleading and a matter of ill judgment simply to confine one's analysis and assessment of it to the first three years.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has been listening carefully to what has been said about beef. But it is as yet not possible to know precisely what the Commission will put forward in its suggestions as to the consideration by Agriculture Ministers of prices and allied matters later this spring.

Sir Robin Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction with the way in which British Ministers have stood up for our interests, both in the matter of the price of beef and on regional policy? On the question of beef, however, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the walk out of the French Minister will in no way affect the early announcement and implementation of our own agricultural price review award?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I can reassure my right hon. Friend on that matter. Our price review and like matters are not at all involved in the particular considerations which affected this Council meeting, or the failure to accept the proposals put to it this week.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Minister aware that in his response to the question put by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) about the relationship between energy and regional policy—which is the same view that he took the last time he made a statement—he is running against all the views which are generally being expressed throughout Europe—that the attitude that the Germans have adopted is certainly related to the reluctance on the part of the British Government to pursue a common energy policy?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what the difference, in effect, would be, for this country as between the German proposals and the Commission's proposals? As I understand it, the dividing line would be in the north-east of England, and Scotland and Wales would be relatively unaffected both ways.
Finally, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to follow the urgings of the right hon. Member for Stepney and to bear in mind that if Britain pursues a Gaullist attitude in Europe, it may appear to be a safeguarding of our interests but it would be to our detriment in the long term.

Mr. Davies: On the first point, I must reiterate what I have already said, that the attitude of mind of the German representatives to the regional policy is, on their own statements in the Council, entirely linked with their very real anxieties about economic developments in the Community as a whole, and particularly in their country, and it is not linked in any sense with a feeling of complaint or with some ostensible reluctance. It was certainly not so in all the discussions which have proceeded on the subject of energy.
German proposals on the appropriate form of regional policy are not, again, quite as the hon. Gentleman supposes. They have the effect of restricting the size of the fund, more, perhaps, than its coverage. The restriction of the size of the fund would, in the Government's view, not be a good feature. Even if it had the effect of procuring more or less the same net effect in terms of the regions to be helped, it would create a poor base upon which to argue for the growth of the fund in future years. It is here that the essential difference lies.

Mr. Powell: What is it that compels this country to be seen haggling in public and soliciting from the taxpayers of other countries aid for the regions of this country which are the responsibility of this nation and of this House? What has happened to our self-respect?

Mr. Davies: I would be sorry if I felt that I was undermining my self-respect in terms of the action which is currently being taken to form a regional policy. My right hon. Friend seems to forget—I know that he accepts this not at all——

Mr. Powell: Not at all.

Mr. Davies: —that if it is the purpose to try to achieve further solidarity in Europe, economically and in other forms, it is absolutely essential that there should be an elimination of the grave disparities that exist.

Mrs. MacDonald: Why is the Minister so enthusiastic about haggling after development aid for the regions of the United Kingdom, including the country of Scotland, when it was admitted in a Government publication today that the system of regional aid which has been operated by successive Governments from this House has been a failure? The publication says that it has been pursued with more enthusiasm than success.

Mr. Davies: Unfortunately, I am not aware of the document to which the hon. Lady referred. All that I can say is that the message that I get from my visits to the regions of this country is quite the reverse from what was said by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Tugendhat: The Minister mentioned the Government's acceptance of the invitation of the United States Government to the energy conference in Washington. Will he give his view of the French proposal for a sort of counter-conference and say whether he regards it as a good idea or not? Will he give some idea of the Government's thinking on a common energy policy? Much as one likes to see British diplomats actively engaged in the Middle East, it would seem at the moment as if European countries are doing their best to bid up the price of oil and to bid down the price of their manufactured goods for export to the oil-producing States.

Mr. Davies: On the first point, I think there is a strong feeling that there may be a need, particularly in the Community, for some assessment of the narrower interests of the Community compared with world-wide interest in relation to energy problems. Therefore, it is not thought that a narrower meeting subsequent to the Washington meeting could do anything but help in the subsequent discussions which might take place.
As for the energy policy, it is clear that the short-term endeavour is to try to maximise the supply of oil to Europe. This must be the case, because Europe suffers from a shortage of oil, and every effort, both individually and collectively, must be directed towards a solution. In the longer term there are many common interests between the European Community and the Arab oil producers, and these are worth exploiting and developing.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Minister not accept that unilateral oil deals could be extremely dangerous for this country bearing in mind the enormous support we are likely to need with the substantial balance of payments deficit we shall be having next year? Will he therefore tell the House that he will rule out such unilateral deals?

Mr. Davies: I stand by what I said earlier. The need at the moment is to use all reasonable means to ensure the greatest supply of oil to a continent which is currently suffering gravely through a shortage of it. Therefore, the Government and, indeed, the Community itself would be ill advised not to explore every means of maximising supply.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Minister said that Britain had always argued for a regional fund of a substantial size. Will he say, in view of his experiences both in December and last week, whether he is very optimistic now about getting a fund of substantial size? In view of the grave economic and financial difficulties in which the Government find themselves, will he make it clear that we cannot continue the outflow to the EEC until we get a regional policy which reimburses some of that outflow?

Mr. Davies: The answer to the first part is that I still firmly believe that we shall obtain a regional fund of a substantial size, of a considerable period and of an adequate coverage. The answer to the first part of the question therefore answers the second part, too.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is there not a tendency when dealing with the regional fund in the Community and in the media to speak about "Great Britain" and "Ireland" as two possible recipients of regional aid? May we be clear that, in spite of the necessity of regional planning transcending the border, there is to be no erosion of political sovereignty in the minds of anyone in Europe and on either side of the border?

Mr. Davies: I do not believe that there is. I believe that there is no doubt at all that Northern Ireland constitutes a region of the United Kingdom and is, therefore, part and parcel of the United Kingdom's interests.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the Kissinger initiative with perhaps a little more restraint and reservation? Does he not understand that the oil-importing countries are no longer able, either through the multinational companies or in any other way, to demand what they want of the oil-exporting countries? Is he not also aware that much more equitable arrangements will have to be arrived at, including possibly market terms and such things, with those countries which hold the supplies that we need?

Mr. Davies: I do not think there is anything in the initiative taken by President Nixon to call this meeting which implies that he wishes to constitute a kind of anti-body to the producers. That is not my understanding at all, nor is it implied in the invitation which has come our way.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the widespread Press speculation that the proposals now being considered by the Council of Ministers envisage a reduction in the areas in this country which are likely to receive aid under the proposals? Will he confirm that the North-West will continue to be included for regional aid, or is it proposed that it should be excluded?

Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Member will find my reply on this point satisfactory. The Government intend to adhere most firmly to the existing map drawn by the Commission which, as the hon. Member knows, embraces the areas to which he refers.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend repeat his reassurance that in this multilateral energy conference no inhibition will be placed by the United States upon the European requirement for oil imports? The United States is much more self-sufficient in energy, particularly oil, than we are, and we should welcome the initiatives being made by this country and the French to improve relationships and trade with such Islamic oil-producing countries as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Davies: I do not think there is any question of the meeting to which the Community and other countries have been invited being one which would put


an impediment in the way of importing countries such as ourselves and France doing all they can to secure future oil supplies.

Mr. McBride: Is it not the case that West Germany has said that on the regional fund it will not buy solidarity at a price, and that, with France, West Germany is opposed to paying the contributions which would be required for the fund to reach the size the British Government hope to see? Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that there has been an attendant sense of failure on the Government's effort to balance the payment we have contracted to make to the Common Market with grants from this fund? In the peripheral area of Wales that I represent there is a strong feeling that the Government have blatantly failed.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member is completely wrong in his last assertion. He is also wrong in his first assertion. I am not revealing any confidences, because it has been publicly stated, but France has clearly backed the fund which the Commission proposed to the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government are not in danger of developing an attitude that was attributed to the French, rightly or wrongly, of being completely selfish? In all these negotiations will he remember that those who supported Britain's entry into Europe did so because we wanted to make a contribution to the unity of Europe as well as play a large part in it? Will he bear in mind that it is a question not just of what we get out of it but of what we put into it? Will he ensure that this is the prevailing attitude—the attitude that was enunciated by the Labour Government between 1967 and the 1970 General Election, during which period we were clearly for a united Europe? Will he say that that policy is to continue?

Mr. Davies: I think I can reassure the hon. Member absolutely that the Government's endeavour is to do both things—to look after the interests of this country very clearly and to ensure that in doing so we further the cause of European solidarity and of the European Community as a whole. I believe we have succeeded in doing so.

Mr. Urwin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is widespread disillusionment in this country among even the most ardent supporters of British integration with Europe on various aspects of European policy and not least over the issue of the regional fund, as evidenced by comments by one of my hon. Friends a few moments ago?
Bearing in mind the strength of German opposition to a £1,250 million regional fund, as evidenced by the Press reports, and accepting that there is some possibility of the British Government capitulating to some extent to the arguments of the West Germans, to what extent do the Government set their sights on a figure below that, a figure at which the right hon. Gentleman can settle with honour?

Mr. Davies: I would certainly not wish both to be a negotiator in the Council and also to operate on a similar basis across the Floor of the House. It would not help the negotiations very much. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's absolute intention to stick to their purpose in this matter in the sense of obtaining a substantial fund, which has substantial benefits for this country and which runs for a reasonable period.

Mr. Urwin: How much?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to state precisely what I have just said I would hesitate to say.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the evidence of the effectiveness of our own and the Community's regional policies to date in diminishing disparities in prosperity between different regions? Is it not fairly clear that there is not much evidence of any improvement in this respect on the basis of these policies to date? Why do we imagine that a bigger and better fund will do what we have so far been unable to achieve at Community or national level?

Mr. Davies: I disagree wholeheartedly with that observation. I have been involved for many years in Government and outside Government with regional problems and in the past three years there has been a major success in certain


areas in redressing the disparities which existed.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. I ask him, therefore, what steps he proposes to take to deal with corruption in the institutions of the Community. In particular, does he agree that our own delegation could create a good image for Britain throughout Europe by refusing to accept travel allowances which are greater than Members' travelling costs?

Mr. Davies: This is outside the framework of my statement, but it is fair to say that, in both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, representatives of this country have consistently proved to be front runners in the matter of greater control. In the parliamentary delegation one of the hon. Members of this House has proved to be one of the most valuable people in instituting firmer control by the European Parliament over expenditure. This already goes some way along the road towards firmer control.

Mr. Dalyell: What discussions have taken place on the rather nasty way in which the representatives of the different powers of Western Europe are now trying to pile on our most sophisticated weaponry in return for oil? Does the Minister realise that the Persians are now relatively more powerful in terms of military capacities than in the days of Darius and Xerxes? Will he instruct his hon. Friend at the Foreign Office, who will probably be answering a debate on the subject at 5.30 in the morning, to state what the Government think they are up to in trying to pile on most sophisticated weaponry in this way? The action is most dangerous and doubtful. That weaponry would be much less valuable than the technical co-operation we could offer.

Mr. Davies: I see that the hon. Gentleman is very anxious that the range of activity in the Community should be substantially extended. That is perhaps a wise thing to suggest. No doubt, whoever responds to the debate will be prepared to deal with the marathon characteristics of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. McMaster: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for

Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), will my right hon. Friend clarify whether money made available from the regional fund to Northern Ireland will go directly to the Executive in Northern Ireland and not be made available through the Council of Ireland?

Mr. Davies: I do not think that I can give that precise assurance.

Mr. Spriggs: Can the right hon. Gentleman give details of the balance of payment figures between the EEC member countries and the United Kingdom up to the present?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall communicate these figures to him separately. I am sure that he will find the figures more accurate if I give them to him in detail in this way.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that each succeeding report which he brings from Europe becomes more disturbing not only to the House but to the people of this country? Is he further aware that the suggestion that he is pressing for a regional policy is a piece of window dressing and an attempt at deception on those of us in the regions, because inherent in the Community policy there is no possibility of giving the regions the help they need? Is it not time the charade in Europe was over and that we seriously considered withdrawal? The Minister should come back to the House for a full-dress debate on this matter as near to the date of the next election as possible.

Mr. Davies: I do not agree with any of the hon. Gentleman's observations.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman reject the English nationalism of the right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the Scottish nationalism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald), which persuades them that it is in some way demeaning to seek to develop a common approach to the common problems of Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will persist in seeking a Community approach to these international questions of regional development? Regarding the regional fund, can he say whether the way forward in the discussions is likely to be provided by the two-tier approach which has


already been discussed, whereby all member countries of the Community are likely to receive some benefit but those which are most needy will get substantially greater benefit? Are the Government already considering applications from local authorities for assistance from the regional fund when it is set up? What arrangements are being made within the Government to process these applications?

Mr. Davies: The two-tier arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one of many formulae proposed to give a reasonable spread of the fund. It has certain advantages which are well worth considering. The formula which can be adopted to distribute the fund does not present the same difficulties as those connected with the constitution of a fund of adequate size and sufficient duration. These matters are presenting the greatest difficulty at present.
Local authorities and other bodies are seeing what proposals they can put before the fund.

Mr. Shore: Further to the questions raised by my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Hey-wood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett), can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether in the discussions on Community response to the oil crisis there was any consideration of unilateral oil-for-arms or oil-for-commodity deals by member States and, in particular, whether the Franco-Saudi deal was discussed? If not, what is the purpose of having a Community of any kind, if matters of this kind and magnitude are not discussed among the members?
Will the right hon. Gentleman come back to the question of the British economy? He must have read the speech by the Governor of the Bank of England,

and he must be aware of the present standing of the pound. Is he telling us that at a two-day meeting of the EEC he, or his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, did not take the opportunity of discussing the British economic situation so as to give the Community countries a warning of the very strong measures that a British Government—if not the present Government—will soon have to take?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is very contradictory. I have told him clearly that it is the Community's intention to formulate an energy policy. The right hon. Gentleman asked why it has not done so. The truth is that it has not yet succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman then asked why we had not clearly put forward the considerations affecting this country's economy. I have already answered him. Those matters have been put forward and discussed in the Community. What more does the right hon. Gentleman wish?

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a statement.

Mr. McMaster: —I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REGISTRY BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Land Registry Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CARAVAN SITES ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the further regulation of caravan sites ; for the security of tenure of owners of mobile homes ; for the control of purchasing transactions between caravan owners and site operators ; and for purposes connected with those matters.
This is an urgent matter of public concern, as is indicated by the immense mail I have received on the subject and by the many hon. Members on both sides who have told me of the problems faced by their constituents who are residential caravan owners. Other hon. Members have raised the matter in the House. The interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) and Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) is well known.
The situation is a combination of three factors—supply, demand and regulation. First, there is a chronic shortage of sites. Secondly, the present raging inflation is forcing many thousands of retired and young married people to invest in caravans rather than houses. The legislation is inadequate to deal with the many abuses, which have been aggravated by the increased demand and restricted supply. These factors apply even more strongly to houseboat owners and the alleged holiday chalet tenants, such as those on the notorious Sunningdale Estate in Worcestershire, which has received some Press prominence recently.
I am dealing today only with caravan sites. I accept that one cannot look at demand without considering supply, and that the Government should advise local authorities to include zones for residential caravans in their forward planning. That would be one step towards breaking the monopoly stranglehold of the profiteering site owners on the fringe of this lucrative but sometimes shady business.
But far more is needed. Many of the 5,250 caravan sites are properly run, and the Caravan Council and the Site

Owners' Federation are discussing with the National Mobile Homes Residents' Association a new form of model contract. But they can only put their own house in order. The Caravan Council has 300 park operators among its members, and the Site Owners' Federation includes only about half of those who operate caravan sites. It does not include many who flourish on the fringe of the trade, a malodorous Mafia of unscrupulous profiteers.
Conditions on many sites do not come up to local authority standards, and it is not even mandatory to impose the model rules of 1960 when licensing a site. If there are abuses, residents are often afraid to report bad sanitation, inadequate fire precautions or petty harassment, for fear of eviction. In some cases that fear even extends to joining the NMHRA. One case of eviction on those grounds is before the courts today, I think in Crewe.
I have a letter from an old-age pensioner in Scotland, where there is not even the protection of the 1968 Act. It begins:
Please keep it dark or you know what will happen to me—out!
It is typical of many I have received.
The 1968 Act gives only 28 days' security of tenure. Although court orders must be sought for possession, the court can only suspend such an order. It cannot challenge the site owner's right to bring in eviction proceedings. I have scores of letters from residents evicted because they objected to having to buy a new caravan or to the raising of the site rent, where the courts imposed only the most trifling delay before the order was carried through.
Nor is it fair to say, as the site owners tend to say, that exorbitant siting, rental and service charges, though not subject to the rent protection afforded to every home occupier, have the courts' assessment in cases of dispute. It is no good telling someone that he can appeal against his site rent but that he must get an eviction notice served on him first.
Finally, there is the growing scandal of forced resale. A constituent of mine inherited a three-month-old caravan from his deceased brother, and was offered 40 per cent. less by the site owner, with a week to accept. If he had dug his heels in, he might have got a better deal, for it was a regulated site. My researches


have come up with many worse cases of straightforward extortion, where the caravan owner is made an offer he cannot refuse for a vehicle for which he probably paid well over the list price. He takes a cut of £1,000 or more, and the following week sees the same caravan advertised by the site owner at even more than he had originally paid.
Is it only the sites that have increased in value? I think not. It is the site plus the caravan. The elderly person who has been forced to invest in a mobile home is shattered to find that the home appreciates in value, like a house, only if the site owner is selling. If the site owner is buying, he claims that it is depreciating like a motor car, but faster.
How can we protect the legions of frightened and swindled people who are living in mobile homes? The law must be strengthened by an amending Bill, and in Scotland new laws are needed.
There must be longer security of tenure than is provided in the 1968 Act. Rents must be properly regulated. In considering eviction orders, the courts must be able to call on the local authority register for evidence that the site is properly and fairly maintained. Local authorities must stipulate, as they are often far too torpid to do now, such conditions in granting licences. All new site tenancy agreements must be on the basis of a lease and the acceptance of the model rules now being drawn up. Sale and resale of caravans through and to site owners must be done on the basis of an agreed commission, not by the brute force of the monopoly buyer, and that percentage commission should be clearly stated in the original lease between the caravan owner and the site owner.
Because of our failures as a society to provide proper housing for all our

people, 250,000 people now live in mobile homes, often through cruel necessity. They must be protected by local authorities using their powers, by the caravan industry itself, and by legislation which bites.
The residents themselves know that we shall be helping the next generation more often than not.
Whatever you can do may not benefit us",
one retired lady wrote to me from Sevenoaks,
but keep it up for all the young ones who have to stay in caravans. It is like a concentration camp here.
She signs above her name, which I cannot give:
Still a hopeful member of society.
Her hopes must not be disappointed. We must not let such people down. It is in that spirit that I ask leave to bring in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. Brynmor John, Mr. Dick Leonard, Mr. Edward Milne, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Mr. John Pardoe and Mr. John Roper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARAVAN SITES ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Bill to provide for the further regulation of caravan sites ; for the security of tenure of owners of mobile homes ; for the control of purchasing transactions between caravan owners and site operators ; and for purposes connected with those matters, presented accordingly and read the First time ; to be read a Second time upon Friday 1st March and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), I point out to the House that, taking into account the Ministers who will seek to reply, well over 60 hon. Members will be seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. I hope that there will be some restraint on the length of speeches.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I hope to be brief, as usual, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill gives the House an opportunity to consider a number of matters concerning the education service which are causing great anxiety to members of local authorities, administrators, teachers and parents.
The present situation, financial and otherwise, can be described only as cuts, confusion and chaos. That applies not only to education but to other services, particularly local authority services, and is connected with the mess the Government have got themselves in on the financial sections of the Local Government Bill, which has still not had its Report stage. The Government are seeking to put the blame for their failures and wrong decisions on local authorities.
There has not been one cut but a series of cuts. I shall take school building as an example. At the beginning of 1973 the Government were making an overall cut in the school building programme on the grounds that there was not the same demand for the basic roof-over-heads programme and that the pressure was off, as the White Paper said, at the end of 1972.
The new phase was the Chancellor's announcement of 21st May 1973, which called for heavy cuts in local authority expenditure as part of the £500 million cut in public expenditure. On 8th

October the Prime Minister announced that public building contracts which would have been placed before the end of 1973 would be postponed until after 1973. We were assured by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that approvals would start again on 1st January and that the cost limits would be increased at the same time. Circular 12/73 was sent to local education authorities with a promise of a further circular which would give more guidance. That further guidance did not come until the day after the Chancellor's statement of 17th December, when Circular 15/73 was issued. That made nonsense of the Government's claims about the priority for getting rid of the out-of-date Victorian schools and for expanding education.
Such an example is to be seen in my constituency. The St. James Junior and Infants School, Gorton, was built in 1834. There have since been some additions. It is a school which my mother attended from five to 12 years before she went to work in a cotton mill. My mother is now almost 80, and she tells me that the school building was fairly grim when she was in it. Final approval for the replacement of that school was expected in 1973. Now it will not even be considered for approval for another 18 months. That means that it will not be considered until July 1975. The site is cleared and is ready for work to start. Houses will be built in the area, but it will be at least 1976 before the building is available.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House could continue for some time giving such examples. I could do so about my own area, but I have nowadays an ally in my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton). Part of my hon. Friend's constituency will be merged into the Moss Side constituency, for which he will be a candidate. My hon. Friend is Chairman of Manchester Education Authority and the AMC's Education Committee. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that he will catch your eye and will have an opportunity to talk about the effect of the changes in Government expenditure and public expenditure on one of Britain's outstanding education authorities.
Some immediate effect will be felt in the area of recurrent expenditure. Just over a year ago the Government published a White Paper entitled "Education: A


Framework for Expansion." In view of the Chancellor's decision to cut public expenditure and investment it should now be retitled "A frame-up for contraction". Paragraph 44 of the White Paper refers to non-teaching costs. It says:
The salaries, superannuation and National Insurance contributions of teachers account for about 70 per cent. of the total cost of running the schools. 'Non-teaching costs' as they are called account for the remaining 30 per cent.
The White Paper then gives the figure for 1971–72, which was £355 million. It continues:
About one-half of the non-teaching costs is directly attributable to the upkeep of grounds and buildings, and nearly a further quarter to the pay of staff employed for this purpose. Expenditure on textbooks, library books, school stationery and materials accounts for about one-eighth of the non-teaching costs ; when educational equipment and other supplies are added this proportion rises to about one-sixth.
That weird combination of figures, percentages and vulgar fractions means, briefly, that the vast majority of recurrent expenditure is teachers' pay and that another 7½ per cent. of it is other employee's pay. The upkeep of buildings amounts to 15 per cent. There is expenditure of 3¾per cent. on books, stationery and other materials and 1¼ per cent. on other equipment. I appreciate that those figures do not add up to 100 per cent. Neither does the combination of vulgar fractions and percentages which is contained within the White Paper.
Paragraph 46 of the White Paper says:
Expenditure per head on books, while varying considerably among the authorities, has on average been below what is recommended by the Association of Education Committees as necessary to achieve a good standard of provision. The Government believe that local education authorities will generally recognise the importance of an adequate supply of books in schools and hope that, where this is necessary, they will aim at improving standards.
The recent decisions of the Government make absolute nonsense of the proposals contained in the White Paper. The area in which local education authorities can make such cuts is very narrow. We are told that teachers' salaries should not be touched and that the number of teachers is not to be touched. That applies also to the wages of non-teaching employees.
The Chancellor, in his statement on 17th December, said:

There would be no point, in the wholly unique situation we face, in saving public expenditure by deliberately reducing the number of public servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December 1973 ; Vol. 866, c. 963.]
Can the local authorities manage to make the cuts without taking such steps? So we shall get a reduction of £63 million in recurrent education costs. It is estimated by the Association of Education Committees that a cut of £50 million to £54 million will be made in the schools. I ask on what basis the figure of £63 million was arrived at. If it is 10 per cent., of what is it 10 per cent.? Local authorities face an enormous problem in obtaining such a cut. I suggest that the cut on items such as books, equipment and the repair of buildings will be consideraby more than 10 per cent.
In a memorandum which was issued today Sir William Alexander, the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, says:
I am advised that chief education officers who were advised by their treasurers as to the total that must be saved on their estimates, are finding that when they cut all procurables by 10 per cent. they have achieved little more than half the savings required.
Sir William takes a particular point in illustration. He says:
the provision for books and stationery or for per capita allowances to schools has not in recent years kept pace with the increase in prices. The purchasing power, therefore, of such allowances as been dropping. In the present year I am advised that the increase necessary on per capita allowances might be as much as 20 per cent., if purchasing power were to be maintained. If that is so, it follows, therefore, that the cut of 10 per cent. may well mean a cut in terms of the purchasing power of these allowances of nearly 30 per cent.
That is the view of a responsible and highly respected man who has been Secretary of the Association of Education Committees for many years.
Sir William takes another example. He says:
it was proposed this year to initiate a pilot experiment in five areas on the induction of teachers.
That was also dealt with in the White Paper. It will not now be possible for the pilot scheme to be carried out because of the proposed cuts. The Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers is to advise the Secretary of State that the pilot experiment should be reduced. That is a further example of the Government's failure. That has


arisen not because of an energy crisis but because of the Government's failure in financial and economic matters to do their job.
Where will local authorities make these cuts? They will make them in repairs and maintenance of buildings, in the provision of books, stationery and equipment. If we have to postpone the building of new schools to replace Victorian schools, then it will mean spending more money on the Victorian schools, which will have to make do for another three years or so. We all know the disasters which have occurred in the past when Conservative Governments and Conservative councils have suddenly cut expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange and I know of schools in our areas which have fallen down through lack of maintenance. If schools are to be maintained in a habitable state, more money will need to be spent on them. What will suffer will be what teachers call the "bread and butter" items, and this will have a disastrous effect on the education of children.
The Government will try to blame local authorities—and also, I suppose, the miners—for all this. This shows the utter collapse of Government policies and will be a disaster for the children who are now at school. Some of the cuts being considered by local authorities are appalling. As well as the inevitable cuts in books and equipment, they are considering a reduction of the protein in school dinners, cuts in auxiliary staff, reductions in the number of swimming lessons, and curtailment of in-service training for teachers. I have not referred to universities and higher education because I am sure that Vice-Chancellors and everybody else are in the dark about the Government's intentions.
The situation is confusing and chaotic. It would have been chaotic in any case, because these cuts are all taking place against the background of local government re-organisation, which in itself is a difficult matter. The new councils and their officers have been working under very great difficulties. The job of treasurers and chief education officers and their staffs must now be a nightmare. The new education authorities hoping to bring their educational provision in the new areas up to the standards of the best

will find themselves reducing their standards below the worst. There is chaos because the local authorities do not know what grants they will receive. Indeed, the legislation under which they will receive grants has still not passed through the House.
When the Local Government Bill went into Committee on 20th November, there was an atmosphere of rush and haste. That was not surprising, since the Bill was promised in the Queen's Speech in 1972 and it did not appear until October 1973. When the Bill went into Committee we were told that the local authorities would require the legislation at a fairly early stage and that the Committee should complete its deliberations on the Bill by 11th December. This was to enable the Report stage to be taken before Christmas, but we have still not yet taken the Report stage on the Floor of the House although it was promised for this week. Furthermore, because the Bill contains non-financial provisions it will have to go to the other place. When will this urgent Bill be given Royal Assent? What will happen if there is a General Election in the next few weeks? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State or one of his ministerial colleagues will give an answer in this debate.
How do the Government expect the new councils, their officers and the various departments which have been set up to do their job in this situation? The mess the Government are making—and the mess they will make—of our education service has little connection with the energy crisis. The cause of all the trouble is the Government's failure to get their priorities right in past months, the anxiety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his mini-Budget of 17th December to ease taxation for the better-off, and their failure to make the right provision for public investment in education. The education service will suffer as a result. This does not simply mean that the effects will be felt by teachers and in the provision of buildings and administration. This will affect the children who are now at school and those who will be attending school in the next few years.
I do not blame the Ministers in the Department of Education and Science for the Government's failure. It has been suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has killed the Department of


Education and Science—and certainly I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's policies will mean disaster for the education service in the months to come.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I would never lightly dismiss the words of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), because of his knowledge and experience of education. However, I would counsel the House to remember that when we discuss cuts in expenditure, which is always an unpleasant task, there is always a danger of special pleading. We must look at the situation overall to see what is being done year by year, and there are many of us who seek to champion particular causes.
It is sometimes hard to place in degree of importance a particular subject in education within the whole sphere of the social services. Obviously, there is disappointment that the total amount of money available for education is to be cut. But this does not mean that the whole education service and all it comprises are ruined or torpedoed. Therefore, I would not go as far as did the hon. Gentleman in describing the present situation in the way he did. In examining cuts we must look at priorities within the whole education service.
In the present situation it is important to ensure that the money available is spent on items which most people recognise as having the greatest importance. I follow particular aspects of education with special interest because of their relevance to my constituency. Therefore, I was relieved to see that the building programme for special schools—an important and perhaps underrated feature of the White Paper "A framework for expansion"—was left undisturbed in the new situation. I regard this as an important recognition by the Government that there is a considerable amount yet to be done in special education. Many thousands of children who, on present classifications, would normally be seen to be in need of special education cannot obtain education in special schools. Therefore, the building programme foreshadowed by the White Paper is most necessary.
I was also relieved to see that plans for nursery education are not to be thrown overboard, but surely in the present situation more attention than ever should be

paid to the rôle of the pre-school playgroups. There are many reasons for taking this view, one being the particular value in the pre-school playgroup system of parental involvement. We all want to see more involvement of this kind in the educational structure. There is also the factor that the pre-school playgroups can be run inexpensively compared, with more sophisticated nursery schools. If we are living in days of shortage of total funds, we must consider how the rôle of the pre-school playgroups can be enhanced. In many cases such playgroups can be provided for the expenditure of relatively trivial sums compared with other more ambitious programmes of nursery education. I hope that this point will not be overlooked by the Government in considering overall expenditure.
What do the cuts in the education service mean in terms of the youth service as part of total education expenditure? The youth service at present has a low priority in certain local authorities, and even in the eyes of the youth service itself. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that the morale of people working in the youth service and those connected with services for youth is very low. I certainly hope that there is not to be an especial twist to the agony for them because there have to be cuts as a whole. But the present situation is sad.
We are recognising more and more new needs in the area of dealing with young people, not only within the formal education structure but outside it, and also the needs of young people when they have left school. We know that we are short of many people to be the youth leaders of the future. In the circumstances it is particularly gloomy that one should be thinking of restraints on expenditure. However, I suggest to my hon. Friend that there are things which the Government can champion which do not necessarily involve large sums and which, because of the atmosphere of economy in which we operate now, ought to be pressed further with local authorities.
Such statutory provision in the youth services as there is rests upon the slender foundation of Sections 41 and 53 of the Education Act 1944, and 30 years on this looks a very slender foundation indeed. More has been discovered about the needs


of youth in our society than perhaps the wording of those sections of the Act could ever have envisaged. One of the most obvious things which people will point to is the present age range for the youth service as it is presently understood. This has no statutory foundation in the Education Act 1944 but is commonly accepted to cover an age range of 14 to 21.
When we know that currently one of the most alarming features in the whole youth area is a growth in crime and delinquency in the age range 10 to 13, it is a worrying thought that we are talking of overall cuts to a service in which already we know that youth service takes the lowest priority.
We have to consider urgently how we can re-channel existing expenditure if necessary, if there cannot be any increase, to help these paramount social needs. I do not believe that there is the right balance at present between what might be termed formal education and the wider aspect of social education.
I suggest that there could be—and the Government should examine this point—a most infinitesimal switch of resources from the formal education structure to the general field of social education, because there would be more benefit for the young people thereby affected if money were spent in the area of social education rather than necessarily through the formal structure. For example, I suggest that if money were to be expended on a teacher in school, which would enable the pupil teacher ratio to be improved from 1 to 37 or from 1 to 36, or something of that order, if money were spent on someone to be a worker amongst unattached youth there might be better value for the community and for society in such expenditure. I believe that our priorities are not the most excellent in this respect, and such a shift of resources could be pressed on local authorities.
I believe, too, that greater attention could be given to the rôle of the voluntary bodies—and never was it more important that we should recognise the rôle of voluntary bodies in the provision of youth service. Tremendous work is being done by those bodies at relatively economic rates. Sadly, however, there are local authorities throughout the country which do not accord status to them. They do

not regard them as being the equal partners that they can easily be in planning provision for young people in their areas.
Other action could be taken relatively cheaply to improve youth services considerably. It is important that we should do so, despite the current atmosphere of economy. More could be done to switch the emphasis to positive activities for young people in the area of community service opportunities, which are not done as a form of cheap labour to benefit the recipient but done more to help the person who is the doer and the giver and to encourage that person to question why such services have to be provided from the voluntary sector, and to encourage young people to take a positive, questioning rôle in society rather than a negative and possibly anti-social attitude.
I hope also—and this is entirely a matter of cheapness—that greater use can be made of facilities that exist in the community. There are at present some scandalous cases where buildings which have been provided at great expense by the State are not being fully utilised and yet could provide an enormously beneficial rôle for many of the agencies which are operating in the community, particularly those affecting young people. I hope that if we are considering economies and it is not possible to devote large sums in future to the new service, we shall grasp the nettle concerning the multiuse of buildings that already exist, because it is a scandalous waste in certain parts of the country.
I hope that we need not send out a message to the world outside, and to those involved with the youth service in particular, that because we are having, unhappily, to consider cuts in the education service those people who are already at the end of the queue really face no exciting prospect of an improvement in their conditions and in their status. As I believe new needs and new problems have been revealed in the area of youth provision in recent years, I hope that these will not be ignored because the overall provision of finance for the education service has unfortunately to be limited now.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Contrary to the view of the hon.


Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst), I see the immediate future of the education service in this country in gloomy terms.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on covering the whole subject. I do not intend to follow him but will confine myself to asking one or two specific questions dealing with Circular 15/73. First, would the Under-Secretary be clearer as to what is meant in paragraph 2, which states:
Only the following major projects from the 1973/74 starts programme will be eligible for approval…".
It goes on:
School projects to meet basic needs for additional places. Special school projects.
How are the Ministry officials interpreting
basic needs for additional places"?
Is there any difference in the way they interpret this in the primary sector as against the secondary sector? Does it mean that when an authority has applied for an extension for 200 or 300 places in one part of the town, if the Ministry officials find 10 empty spaces five miles across the other side of the town they will say, "You will have to reduce the number of new places and send children across to the other part of town?" There is an indication that a much more rigid approach is being made by Ministry officials in dealing with local authorities on the definition of needs. Secondly, when does he expect to publish the revised allocations for minor works, which we are told will be available shortly?
When people talk of cuts in public expenditure and the Chancellor says that £1,200 million must be cut, the first reaction of many people is a sigh of relief because taxation has not been increased. It is only when they realise what the cuts mean to them that they start getting alarmed. There are to be cuts of £119 million in capital expenditure and £63 million in current expenditure in education. These are large figures and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton has shown what they mean by instancing a school in his constituency. I want to show what they mean in Southampton.
In the financial year 1973–74, Southampton had planned seven major school building projects, at a total cost of £895,000. How many times have I heard

the Secretary of State say, "It is the Government's intention to replace old Victorian primary schools"? And what was the first casualty in Southampton? We have there the Bitterne Church of England School, a first and middle school combined which was built in the Victorian period. It is a scandal that it has not been replaced before now, and I have tremendous admiration for the teachers who work in the conditions there.
At last this has got to the top of the priority list and there is to be a replacement first school and also a new middle school. Despite considerable initial difficulty, to our amazement, we eventually got a tender within the cost limits for the two new schools. That was then caught by the previous Government's circular deferring such work for three months. The Secretary of State assured us here that all these projects would be dealt with after 1st January. Under the latest Government circular, it will be at least 18 months before these buildings get under way. Goodness knows what the extra cost will then be.
The parents of children at this school who have been enduring these conditions for a long time and whose hopes were raised will now have to wait 18 months to two years and it will be three or four years before the school is completed. Another old school due for replacement, the Sholing Middle School, will come out, too. I hope that the Minister has a list of all these schools, having seen my name on the list of speakers.
Then we come to extensions to a secondary school in the bottom end of Southampton, in an urban aid area. This is a very old school. Due to representations made by both Members of Parliament for Southampton, one on each side of the House, the Minister was persuaded about a year ago to bring it forward slightly in the programme because it was in an area of social deprivation. Again, we had obtained tenders last September and again the scheme was caught by the previous circular. Shall we be allowed to go ahead with the extensions to Deanery School? At the moment there is doubt. I plead with the Under-Secretary to allow that to go ahead.
There are other extensions to schools in our capital programme of which I hope some will be allowed to go ahead, including St. Monica Middle School and


Bitterne Park Secondary School. I understand that a project concerning a school for maladjusted children will be allowed to go ahead. But the two crucial ones are those for which tenders were approved-Bitterne Church of England and Deanery Schools.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the reductions in current spending on educational equipment, books, decoration and the rest will be much more substantial than appears at first sight. The memorandum by Sir William Alexander shows that in many cases the reductions will be well above 10 per cent. and in some cases may be as high as 20 per cent. or 30 per cent.
I have been interested in the youth service for a long time, directly at one stage. Perhaps I had better declare an interest. My wife has been and is a part-time assistant in a youth centre. The youth service, I fear, will suffer in its current expenditure on such things as instructors in crafts and sports. Perhaps the building programme will not suffer so much. It will depend on what is in the pipeline in different parts of the country. As the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich said, perhaps some local authorities have given this service a low priority, but obviously, if there is a choice between books for children at school and instructors at youth clubs, most local authorities will give the higher priority to books and equipment in schools. They must consider the compulsory school period first.
I fear that there will be substantial reductions in many parts of the country in the services provided in youth clubs. A youth club without the ability to pay instructors in judo, canoeing and other activities offers a much poorer service and is much less attractive to those, generally called the unattached, one wants to attract. The effect of the latest round of cuts will be inevitably to harm the youth service.

Mr. Haselhurst: Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there are some children who should get high priority? He said that, naturally, those within the structure got the highest priority, but what about those who have been sent home by head teachers because they are so disruptive and who have not yet come within the jurisdiction of the

courts, who are caught in the middle with no provision? Are not they a higher priority than what he referred to generally as the formal education structure?

Mr. Mitchell: I agree absolutely. The youth service starts before youngsters leave school. In Southampton we have developed a junior youth service which caters for youngsters of 13 and 14. I believe in continuity. The number of pupils who have been sent home from school as being incapable of learning any more is not very large, but there is a large number of youngsters in their last year in school who benefit tremendously from the facilities provided by the youth service.
I did not say that I thought the youth service had a low priority. I said that I suspected that, faced with a choice of school books or instructors in sailing, canoeing and judo, the majority of local authorities would provide books for the classroom. It is the ancillary services that are likely to be reduced severely and it is a sad day for the education service.
I detect a great increase in frustration amongst all sections of the education service. The cuts recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and supposedly agreed to by the Secretary of State can only add to that frustration. I have tried briefly to show the reality behind the phrase "cuts in public expenditure". Those words mean increasing frustration in the classroom, children having to attend schools which should have been pulled down years ago and a decrease in the facilities provided by the education service.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: The hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) have put forward the argument always put forward by the Opposition whenever there are cuts. They have deplored cuts in certain directions. When I listened to the list of things that the hon. Member for Gorton considered should not be touched, for a moment I wondered whether he was advocating that the number of teachers and teachers' salaries should be cut, but, knowing him, I knew that he did not mean that. I suspect that he would have no cuts and that he would increase the Government expenditure on education. On the other


hand, the hon. Member for Itchen said that there should perhaps be increased taxation.

Mr. Marks: What I said was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not the Secretary of State for Education and Science had chosen the priorities between the educational service, private spending and the taxation of higher incomes. Educational investment is a far more valuable investment than that which is obtained from more private investment because of a tax reduction for the better-off.

Mr. Fry: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. There are many ways in which the Opposition intend to use the yield from the increased taxation of higher incomes. If the Labour Party ever came into power higher incomes would have to become very low incomes to achieve what the Labour Party wants to achieve. I suspect that the hon. Member for Gorton will hesitate to recommend in his election address—be it next month or next year—a tremendous increase in taxation, as that is not politically popular.
Neither hon. Gentleman has faced the basic fact that if an across-the-board cut in public expenditure is necessary, education, as all other sections of Government expenditure, has to play its part. Where the two sides of the House might disagree is in the areas in which these cuts are made.
If we have to check the increase of expenditure on education there is one area which the Secretary of State might consider carefully. For a long time we have been madly going ahead with increasing the amount of money we spend on university and further education without regard to what the country gets back. From talking to schoolmasters and students I have discovered that many young people go blithely on in full-time education until they are 21 or 22 without knowing what they want to do at the end of it. Industry and commerce are crying out for intelligent young people to train at an age when they are more malleable than they are in their mid-twenties.
For a long time I have argued that more young people should be attracted into industry and commerce direct from school. The more intelligent ones would be quite prepared to do this if there were a clear-cut avenue at a later stage for them to go to university or colleges of further education to acquire the technical

or other qualifications they need. Many employers would welcome an influx of young people at an earlier age. By the time those young people were 21, 22 or 23 they would have had six or seven year's experience in industry, which would be of considerable value to their employers. In those circumstances many employers would be prepared to pay part of the cost of those young people undergoing further education.
Before I am accused of trying to stop people getting university degrees, I should say that I believe that more people should be given the opportunity to get degrees but a little later in life when they have had more practical experience than they get from vacation jobs.
There is one aspect of the cuts which might be of benefit. In my constituency the education committee, in a mad gallop before it loses power on 31st March, has suggested a scheme of secondary reorganisation which has met with almost universal condemnation both by those who are in favour of comprehensive education and by those who are not. The committee has suggested that all children in Wellingborough should be allowed to go to the nearest comprehensive school. The committee proposes to combine the existing grammar school and high school to make a comprehensive school for more than 1,000 pupils between 11 and 18. Other children in nearby towns who go to secondary modern schools or, by passing the 11-plus examination, to selective schools in Wellingborough will continue to take the 11-plus examination to enable them to go to a comprehensive school.
This nonsense should not be allowed by the Secretary of State when the proposals come before her. If the expenditure cuts result in this scheme not coming into effect a good turn will be done to many children in my constituency. I have already written to the Secretary of State, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is prepared to meet deputations of parents and councillors of all political persuasions from two towns in my constituency, Irthlingborough and Raunds. My constituents feel that those who live in one part of the constituency should not be privileged to attend a comprehensive school automatically whereas children in


another part have to take the 11-plus examination to enable them to attend that same school. It makes a nonsense of the scheme. It will mean that some parents will deliberately buy a house within the catchment area of the school which they consider to be the better one, in which case money will be more important in State education than it has been for many years.
I hope that the scheme being put forward will prove abortive. I hope that there will be a thorough investigation of other alternatives. I trust that the middle school system will be investigated and suggested to the county education committee. If these cuts do no more than stop this scheme, then, although I regret that they have taken place, they will have done some good.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I very much welcome the opportunity which this debate gives to discuss some of the present difficulties, particularly financial, in which chairmen of education committees and chief officers find themselves. Framing estimates is never an easy exercise but on this occasion it is proving particularly difficult. I cannot remember another occasion when there has been such chaos in local authority finance. I go so far as to say that it is a horrific situation.
I want to explain some of the difficulties that have arisen in the past few weeks in my city, of which I have the honour to be a representative. There has been a good deal of discussion lately about our energy problems. In Manchester more than 200 schools are heated by oil. I am told that if we get deliveries of oil this year amounting to 90 per cent. of our needs there will be a 50 per cent. increase in cost over last year. That increase has to go into next year's estimates.
I turn to the subject of school meals. The increase in food costs on known contract prices compared with a year ago means that an allowance has to be made in the estimates for a 42 per cent. increase in this item. This is not slap-happy spending by members of local authorities. This is happening to responsible local authorities putting out contracts to tender. They have to meet this increase of 42 per cent. to provide the basic diet of schoolchildren.
Education committees will have to look carefully at expenditure on maintenance and repair of buildings. It is an area of expenditure which is slashed every year when the chairman of the finance committee comes along and asks for a cut in the estimates to make savings on revenue spending. I know that next year in Manchester even limited maintenance and repair is estimated to require an additional 15 per cent. compared with last year. These items—oil, school meals, maintenance and repair—are all areas in which local authorities are being asked by the Government to make savings of 10 per cent. If this is enforced I tremble to think where the cuts will come in education in the next year.
Let us look at some of the spending on what we call minor works. This phrase disguises such things as the provision of indoor toilets, the improvement of staff rooms, dining and kitchen facilities and the layout of playing fields. There is a general consensus that the future of the education service rests on its teachers. I have not known a time when the morale of teachers has been lower. The improvement of the items I have mentioned is part of the answer to the problem of bettering teachers' morale. It is not solely a question of salaries.
Manchester found itself allocated over £300,000 for minor works in 1973–74. In October last Circular 12/73 said that no further works should be started before the end of 1973. By that time all the money had been fully committed. I wish to draw attention to the chaotic way in which education committees are having to handle budgeting. Of that £300,000 the sum of £126,000 had been committed in a panic at the beginning of the year when the Minister asked local authorities to advance their starts on minor works to help in relieving unemployment. Local authorities which had wanted to do something about the severe problem of unemployment in the conurbations set about getting jobs in hand as soon as they could.
Within a few weeks they discovered that no further money would be forthcoming and that all further projects would have to wait until April of this year. In Manchester over £200,000 was to come to us in April with £190,000 promised for the following year. All of this has gone. It has been cancelled, and


we find that we have £96,000, which takes us to the end of June 1974. There is an urgent need for a much less rigid attitude on the part of the Government towards responsible local authorities and their financial expenditure.
In the early part of last year in Manchester we had an unfortunate fire in one of our primary schools. Fortunately, no children were in the school at the time. The school was burnt down very quickly indeed. Following this, the chief education officer and the chief fire officer were asked to report urgently on a situation in which a school burned down so quickly. The chief fire officer reported that he believed that there could be an improvement in fire safety measures if the void between the ceiling and the roof were compartmentalised. As a result, the city of Manchester decided to do something about it speedily because of our concern for the safety of our children. We discovered that one of our schools of this type of construction was a school for physically handicapped children, so we decided to spend money ourselves immediately on that task. However, there were some 30 other schools which needed this very important and urgent action. We went to the Secretary of State and asked for approval to spend a sum out of key sector money which local authorities need for jobs of this kind. We met with a blank refusal. This is a disgraceful state of affairs when it involves the safety of our school children.
Previously the Government had given the city loan consent to convert its schools using solid fuel to gas-burning, and that is a little ironic today. Now we are asking that we should have an allocation immediately to spend money doing this important work. I hope that the Minister will consider that urgent request.
I conclude with a brief word about the education building programme. We face a situation where we shall have no replacement of old primary and secondary schools for another 18 months. In the city of Manchester we have many old voluntary and aided primary schools still in existence. Most people believe that we have too many. At present we have some seven primary schools involving a cost of £1 million in programmes which will no longer go forward. All of them

will be lost. One of them, in my own constituency, is the St. Anne's Roman Catholic Infants School in Ancoats. The oldest part of the building dates from 1848. There were building additions in 1880. What are described as the "new buildings" were built in 1896. A short time ago metal guttering from the building fell into the school yard. The gutters are now held up by boards and brackets, and temporary measures have been taken to prevent slates from falling off the roof. The roof itself is sinking and the rain comes in. That is a situation which parents and pupils have to endure for another 18 months before even a start can be made on a new building.
In the city of Manchester we shall lose some £3·5 million worth of work on higher and further education buildings. I have no doubt that we shall have an announcement to the effect that some of these may well go forward. But no one can believe that there is anything other than a huge question mark hanging over them in the limited programme that is to be announced later.
The education service is in a tragic state. It cannot be removed from the general economic state in which we find ourselves, and I believe that we need more than ever, and more quickly than ever, a new Government which can grasp the problems of the education service.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I share the anxieties which have been expressed on both sides of the House about the impact of the cuts in public expenditure on the education service, and I share the relief which has been expressed that special schools and nursery education are not to be made to carry the brunt of the cuts and, indeed, are to be largely exempted from them.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will acknowledge that in the past I have not been very demanding on his Department in educational matters. I recognise that Oxford is not an under-privileged area in education. Probably nowhere in the country is there a constituency of the size of Oxford which contains a university, a polytechnic and a teaching hospital as well as a very wide range of secondary, primary and special schools. However, I want to take a minute or two to put one or two matters to my hon.


Friend both of a general and of a particular character.
My first general point is that I believe that it would be a false economy to be parsimonious in the current review of student grants just as it would be a false economy to be parsimonious in negotiating teachers' salaries. There is the important difference that, whereas everyone recognises that there are not enough teachers, many people consider that there are too many university students. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said that it would be desirable to steer more potential or would-be university students into employment accompanied by part-time further education. I go along with him to the extent of saying that I believe that the Government would be economising in the long run by putting more money into careers advice in schools which might help to direct the interest of young people to a much greater extent along channels where they would find perhaps a more satisfactory working life than many would get out of going for a degree at a university for which their talents might not be well adapted. Even under the shadow of the axe, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will at least consider the desirability of improving the careers advice service and not cutting it down in secondary schools.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in introducing the Employment and Training Act his own Government restricted careers advice just to the first jobs which people take when they leave school whereas we advocated that the service should be available to all young people until they reached the age of 18?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was recommending just that for a number of years, based upon my experience as Director of Education and Training at the CBI. In my case the hon. Gentleman is talking to the converted.
My second general point, on which the hon. Gentleman probably will not agree with me, is to ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the cuts will not fall upon the direct grant system. I know that the Opposition do

not like direct grant schools. However, a considerable number of Labour supporters in my own constituency are anxious to continue sending their children to the two excellent direct grant schools in Oxford. I should not like to be a party to depriving them of that opportunity.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency children in secondary schools are out of school for two half days a week? They are not doing a full week's schooling. The Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State have sent people to visit the schools, but they are still in the same disgraceful condition.

Mr. Woodhouse: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The problem is not confined to his constituency, nor to any one particular class of secondary or primary school. It is a matter that we must all lament.
My third and last point concerns the Cowley St. John's Church of England school in the Donnington area of Oxford, about which I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. This is a school with a fine new building. Unfortunately, the fields adjoining the building, which are intended to be the school's playing fields, have had to be left in a condition which is a quagmire in winter and a desert in summer because the funds for the necessary drainage work have run out. This is not the fault of the managers of the school or of the local education authority. The problem arises because of housing developments on the far side of the fields from the school which have necessitated a more elaborate drainage system than was provided when the school was built. There are now no funds to complete the work.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration to the representations that I have made on this subject, because to leave a school in this condition is to leave it incomplete. That is demoralising for the teachers, the children and the parents, and it is bad for education from every point of view.
Naturally, the Minister finds himself bombarded with advice from hon. Members on how to spend more money at a time when he has to make cuts. I should like to offer one suggestion about the principle on which economy should


be based. It is unfortunate that when public expenditure has to be cut the axe is wielded in an indiscriminate way on the directions of the Treasury, which says that there must be an X per cent. cut across the board, whereas more realistically it would be preferable to agree upon, say, a 5 per cent. cut in one place balanced by a 20 per cent. cut somewhere else.
Whenever I have been compelled to take part in economy drives, I have found that a fundamental principle should be to wield the axe more firmly on commitments that have not yet been entered into rather than on pruning things that are growing. A commitment that has not yet been entered into can be indefinitely postponed without any real damage being done, but cuts inflicted on something that is already growing—for example, pruning a tree—will infallibly lead to further growth and further pruning will be necessary in future. Therefore, I suggest that the target for cuts should be not that that is incomplete and in progress but items of expenditure that have not yet begun and for which no commitment has yet been undertaken.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: Most of our attention today appears to be focused on the Government's cuts. I want to follow that particular line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), in his introduction, described the cuts as "confusion and chaos". I think that could be extended to "calculated, cruel and callous".
I do not accuse the Under-Secretary of State of adopting a calculated, cruel and callous attitude. He finds himself in a difficult position. Anyone interested in education, taking the job that he has just taken, must be extremely disheartened to find that the axe has been wielded over the Department. Inevitably, it must mean that the State education service must be impoverished. The whole responsibility, as I shall tell my constituents before too long, is not on the hon. Gentleman, but on the Prime Minister and the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton), with his wealth of experience, spoke about items of expenditure and the alarming increase

of 42 per cent. in budgeting for school meals and the 50 per cent. increase in the cost of oil.
In December last year I asked the Under-Secretary of State a question about books and paper in schools. I know that he is investigating this matter. There is a shortage of paper, and a shortage of paper affects education. A shortage of paper affects not only packaging and newsprint but schools. The Huddersfield Doily Examiner on 26th November reported a Stockport firm which supplies schools in my constituency as saying:
We are rationed on a monthly quota. Ordering early is no help because the basic production materials just are not there.
This is a world-wide problem. Clearly, when there is a shortage of almost any commodity or product, it is not surprising that in the type of economy that we have the price goes up. Unless ministerial attention is given to this item, with cuts of £63 million envisaged, the cost and the diminishing supplies of paper will make it difficult for local education departments to provide the necessary paper for schools. Clearly, we cannot envisage going back to the slate era, but paper and book supplies will be a major problem for some schools. As we have heard, many schools do not use or buy enough textbooks each year. I think that the situation will get worse.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that in London school heads are having to use money which was put aside for that very purpose to try to attract staff to prevent children being out of school for two half days a week?

Mr. Clark: Yes. It is scandalous that in 1974 children are having part-time education. We have gone back to the 1870s with half-time education.
Another matter that has been raised that could be absolutely decimated by cuts is adult education. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) referred to youth centres. They pointed out that any cuts in non-formal services—I include adult education in that description—are bound to be minimal, yet their effect can be absolutely disastrous. We have only to consider the history of these services to realise that that is so.
It is all the more tragic for adult education. We had the excellent Russell Report on adult education at the end of last year, which raised the hopes of the service and of the people involved in it. However, there is now concern at the thought of the axe being wielded again. This point was made forcibly to me about two weeks ago when I accepted an invitation to meet the heads of the adult education centres in my constituency. I went round a further education centre at Holmfirth where I was shown all the activities from yoga to furniture repairing, English to first-aid, art, and so on. I talked to the students—perhaps "student" is a misnomer in one sense—who were obviously benefiting immensely from this service. It was education in the real sense as opposed to formal schooling. The expenditure on adult education in my constituency is absolutely vital, and a 10 per cent. cut at any adult education centre would destroy the system. This has happened in the past, and I am sure that it will happen again.
Hon. Members have put forward the problems affecting major cities such as Manchester, Southampton, London and Oxford. I want to try to relate the cuts to a county area of about 400 square miles consisting of small industrial villages. I propose to ask specific questions about the effect of the cuts on that area, which started to be developed during the Industrial Revolution. It has within it the wool textile industry and coal mines in the Pennine valleys, and because of its proximity to Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield the population has increased considerably. The education service has improved, but school building has not improved to anything like the extent that is necessary.
In December 1970 I raised in an Adjournment debate the problem of the Saddleworth Secondary School. This is an odd area geographically, in the sense that it is in the West Riding but being on the western side of the Pennines, is completely cut off from the rest of the West Riding by 10 miles of uninhabited high Pennine hills. Some services are provided from Lancashire, but the education service has always been provided by the West Riding. It does not have a comprehensive school, and the children have to pass the equivalent of the 11-plus in order to enjoy the privilege of travelling

12 miles across the Pennines, which is a hazardous journey in winter, to attend a comprehensive school. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, as the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State accepted when she approved a plan put forward by the West Riding and later approved the publication of a notice which would have made the school comprehensive. This involved considerable extensions to the school, and after disappointment after disappointment work was delayed under Circular 12/73.
As I understand it, the school is classed by the West Riding authority as one which meets the basic needs requirement, and I wonder whether the Minister can explain—not necessarily now but perhaps later by letter—the present situation. There is a fantastic amount of local support for this school. The area has an electorate of about 17,000, and no fewer than 10,000 of this electorate signed a petition calling for the establishment of a comprehensive school. It is an ideal area for such a project, and it would be a tragedy if approval for it were withheld.
There is a problem not only in secondary education, but in primary education, too. I do not know how many Victorian-type schools are in use, but only last year, which happened to be tree-planting year, with the assistance of the Forestry Commission I wrote to about 60 schools in my constituency asking whether they wished to co-operate in a project which we were launching for giving three trees to each school.
The idea was very much welcomed. More than 50 schools participated in the project, but a number of older, Victorian-type schools had to say that they were unable to participate, even though they would like to do so, because they had only small playgrounds with a tarmacadam surface, and in a number of other cases trees had to be planted in pots.
There will be grave disappointment if these schools are not renewed because, as I understand it, they are classified as replacement and not as basic needs schools. That situation exists in the Colne Valley, and difficulty is also being experienced at Denby Dale Primary School, about which the Minister was gracious enough to receive a petition.
There is an odd situation at the school, and I should like the Minister's guidance


on the matter. As I understand it, this is a school at which the project is based partly on basic needs and partly on replacement. The school has leaky roofs. I do not know how many prefabricated buildings there are, but it gives the appearance of a circus. The school is grossly overcrowded, and every conceivable room, including the staff room, appears to be used for teaching. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in population in the area, and buildings have been revalued—I do not know by how much—because the area has been classified by the Treasury as a growth commuter area in spite of the fact that there are three coal mines and 17 mills there. I fail to see how the school can be regarded as partly basic needs and partly replacement, because there simply is no more space for temporary accommodation. Does a school get the go-head, or does one build half a school to meet the basic needs requirement? I ask the Minister for some guidance on the matter.
There is also a problem affecting Holme Valley Grammar School, because its change to a comprehensive school has been held up under Circular 12/73. We have organised a comprehensive education service in this area, and if that project is held up the position will be seriously affected.
I conclude by sympathising with the Minister because I know that he has a difficult job to do. The greatest effect of the cuts will be felt in new school building. Quite rightly, people have come to expect more and more out of the State education service. I wish that there were no private education and that all children were taught under the State system, because if that were to happen there would not be cuts such as those that have been imposed by the Government. I say that because it has not gone unnoticed by people in my constituency that Ministers' children are not affected because their schools are untouched by these cuts.
I read in the Yorkshire Post of 19th December 1973 that many villages in Yorkshire which have been waiting for final approval for new schools for years will be disappointed. The articles quotes Sir Alec Clegg, who is a recognised authority on the subject, as saying that 40 per cent. of new schools in the West

Riding would be jeopardised and that most of these would be in disadvantaged areas. The Government are making a grave error. They could make savings elsewhere, and cutting schools in this way will be a grave disappointment to many people.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I welcome the debate, but it is deplorable that the House should have to spend time discussing cuts in education. The Government's election theme in 1970 was that they wished to create a one-nation society. There can be few, if any, sectors of life that are more vital for developing a more just society than education, and it is regrettable that it is necessary to debate cuts in this service.
Members of Parliament, irrespective of which part of the country they represent, know that there have been many debates on the Government's education policy. Two of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and are listening to this debate, and myself, have never lost the opportunity of presenting to the Minister the problems that exist in education in London. We have a number of old schools, often in areas with the greatest housing problems and a shortage of teachers. The tragedy is that the situation has been worsened by Government policy. We now have the cut-backs announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are very substantial. This again will hit areas such as the constituency which I represent.
In Wandsworth we have schools that were built 60 and 70 years ago. I have up-to-date figures from the Inner London Education Authority. In the authority's area there are 280 primary schools that were built before 1903. They are over 70 years old. The ILEA has continually tried to have moneys allocated to it so that it could start to get rid of those schools. In the current building programme which the ILEA was trying to formulate for its area it had 32 projects that it wished to tackle. Those projects have now been stopped as a direct result of instructions from the Department of Education and Science.
Against that background one can understand the problems which are expressed by teachers.

Mr. Ronald Brown: On page 134 of the Supply Estimates it can be seen that, alongside the cuts to which my hon. Friend is referring, the grants for direct grant schools are being increased by nearly £1 million.

Mr. Cox: I note my hon. Friend's comment with deep regret. He was the leader of a deputation of Opposition Members a few months ago. The deputation met the Secretary of State and discussed the problems of London. It received a very cool, off-hand reception from the right hon. Lady. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's comment is of the sort which can only be expected in the circumstances of the present Government's priorities regarding education.
The ILEA has readily acknowledged the kind of problems existing in its area, especially that of old schools. It offered to help but, in relation to the minor works programme—which no one suggests would have solved all the problems—it was stopped as a direct result of the interference of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. That minor works programme would have enabled essential improvements to be carried out to the 280 very old schools in the authority's area and would have enabled some of the more important projects for improvement to be undertaken. The Secretary of State refused to allow the authority to spend its money on the kind of improvements that it wanted to make.
When the Government have been challenged by Questions, we have always been given the same answer. The right hon. Lady's answer is that school rolls in London are decreasing and that, therefore, the money does not need to be spent. When I have spoken to meetings of the parent-teacher associations in my constituency and conveyed that answer to them, which was not the answer that I wanted to give, it has been received with expressions of utter disbelief that the Secretary of State could be so out of touch with the views, feelings and needs of local schools.
On four occasions I have invited the Secretary of State to come to Wandsworth to visit our schools. I could have supplied a list of schools from which the right hon. Lady could have chosen that which she wished to visit in order to see the problems with which we have

to contend. On every occasion she has refused the invitiation. It did not, however, escape the notice of my constituents, nor, I doubt, of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry), who is present today, that the right hon. Lady could find time to address a Tory public meeting in Wandsworth.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Even if the right hon. Lady sent her Under-Secretary, that may not solve the problem. A former Under-Secretary visited a school in my consituency to try to find means of avoiding the need for children to be out of school for two days a week. That Under-Secretary has now changed his job. There are still children in my constituency who are out of school for two half-days a week. I am not sure that it is a disadvantage that the right hon. Lady has not visited schools in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Cox: In view of the nearness of a General Election, it would be a waste of time to invite another member of the present Government. Perhaps if we wait for another month we shall be able to invite a Labour Minister to visit our schools. I would hope that the results would be far better.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman I should like to inform him that I have a child who is attending an ILEA comprehensive school in the borough of Wandsworth, so I am not completely ignorant of what goes on there.

Mr. Cox: I am glad to hear that. I would certainly hope that the Minister would be aware of what is happening in primary schools.
On 28th December a report appeared in one of the local newspapers in my constituency. It was headed
Toddlers forced to learn in classrooms.
I apologise. I have misread it. I wish that it was "classrooms". The report was headed:
Toddlers forced to learn in corridors.
The Wandsworth Teachers' Association said in a recent report:
Primary schools are particularly bad, with lack of space for both staff and children in some schools Sometimes there are two


lessons going on in one classroom, and in other schools over-crowding is so bad that young toddlers were being taught in corridors. Primary school toilet facilities are appalling—very often they are outside the main building and completely exposed to wind and rain. Some schools have no inside toilets at all.
With the weather that we are experiencing today, it is easy for hon. Members to understand the problems with which teachers are faced. They face not only difficulties caused by the lack of suitable teaching facilities, but those caused by youngsters having to visit outside toilets and returning wet. Teachers have to make sure that they are dry by wiping them with towels, and so on. The Chancellor's cut-backs affecting the education budget will worsen this position.
In this appalling situation I must pay tribute to the great loyalty of parent-teacher associations in my constituency. I am sure that the same applies in the constituencies of many hon. Members. They undertake fund raising to try to make improvements in schools. It is an appalling indictment against the Government that only a few weeks ago the nation was being told that we were living in booming Britain and that the financial resources of this country had never been better, yet it was left to the spare-time efforts of parent-teacher associations to make modest improvements in then-schools because the money could not be obtained from the Government.
I should like to refer to a comment reported to have been made by the present Under-Secretary at a recent conference in Birmingham. It was reported in Teachers' World on 11th January. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman stated at that conference that the cut-backs would not seriously affect the school building programme but would be only deferments. Surely, everyone, including the hon. Gentleman, now knows that when school building projects are being approved and when the buildings are under construction, there is very little opportunity at any stage in the future to make substantial improvements within the confines of a particular school. One cannot defer them. One might be able to defer some external improvements but one cannot defer the improvement of facilities inside a school until a time when one may have more money.
I recently wrote to the Minister concerning the St. Boniface School in my constituency. The headmaster and the

local diocese are deeply concerned about the cut-backs in that school, which total about £30,000. The headmaster realises, after discussions with parents and teachers, that the cut-back will mean that future school developments will suffer. The head does not see any hope in the foreseeable future, even if the money is forthcoming, of the improvements taking place.
There is another serious aspect concerning teaching in London. It is the London allowance. This is directly relevant to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) earlier. For about the last 15 months there has been absolute uproar among teachers in London because of the way they have been treated by the Government over the London allowance. There have been teacher protests, schools shut, and massive demonstrations at this House by teachers from all over London expressing deep concern at the interference of the Secretary of State.
There was the case in the minor works programme where ILEA was prepared to enter into negotiations and agree to a far higher amount than the Minister finally suggested should be allowed. In the course of these negotiations she intervened and said that she did not agree with what ILEA proposed, and she laid down what the position would be, taking the attitude that she was the Minister and this was her opportunity to dictate what would happen. The same attitude was followed on the allowance. I had an Adjournment debate over a year ago about the London allowance. The right hon. Lady did not make clear at that time the disastrous effects her action would have on schooling in London. Young teachers, the very life blood of teaching in London, the people we need in our schools to provide teaching staff stability, have left.
These young teachers will not stay. The reasons are the Government's deliberate interference over the London allowance while offering no concession on two key factors for London teachers—housing and travel. Teachers do not waste their time even thinking about buying property in London—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) v/ill confirm from his experience as a teacher. Teachers have received no help from the Government on


the rising cost of renting property or travelling to work. It is appalling that this should happen, because the Government came to power declaring that they would be honest in their dealings with the people.
I have here a copy of the letter from the headmaster of the Ernest Bevin Comprehensive School in my constituency. It is dated 9th January, and it is being sent to the parents of all boys at the school. It deals with the problem at the school of part-time schooling—a problem which also afflicts another school in my constituency. We have to go back a long way to find part-time schooling not only in London but in other parts of the country. Yet at this school part-time education is the direct result of the Minister's interference over the London allowance. The letter from the headmaster says:
No doubt you are aware from reports which have appeared in the press that in order to draw attention to the continuing serious shortage of teachers in London, and to the failure of the Government to approve a greatly increased London Allowance (a claim which is strongly supported by the I.L.E.A.), members of the Teachers' Unions… will in future refuse to supervise classes for teachers absent for more than 3 days, or for those time-tabled for non-appointed staff.
To his credit the headmaster supports the action of the teachers—an action they regret having to take. They have been forced into it as a direct result of the Government's interference.
The terrible thing is that the cut-backs will worsen the two situations I have described—old, inadequate buildings and insufficient teachers wanting to stop in London because of inadequate salaries. We are entitled to ask the Minister what will happen, because we have not been able to question the Secretary of State on it. For example, what will happen to the White Paper on Education as a result of the cut-back? I can remember how the right hon. Lady spoke in glowing terms some months ago of what the Conservatives were doing for education and what her White Paper would mean for education generally—not one sector of it but the whole range of education. What is the relevance of that White Paper in the light of the cut-backs? Some Conservatives have commented on it today—to their credit—and on the bad effect it will have.
We are supposed to be in an election atmosphere. We are apparently led to believe that the Prime Minister will have to go to the country because someone must put the miners in order. I have received not a single letter either for or against the miners' claim, but I have constantly received letters from constituents expressing their deep opposition to the Government's action in cutting back expenditure on education and in creating part-time schooling in London.
I am sure that the Minister must be aware of the statement by the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Edward Britton, over the last few days when he spoke of the declining morale of the teaching profession. Teachers are beginning to feel that the Department of Education and Science does not understand their difficulties. Mr. Britton's views are being echoed by thousands of parents. The Minister and the Department do not appreciate that people these days are much more intelligent. They are not prepared to accept a Press hand-out issued by the Department but instead are beginning to question whether the Government's priorities are right.
They want to know whether their children will have to cut-back to three days schooling a week while the Government continue to spend millions of pounds on projects such as Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel. They question whether we can afford these projects while refusing to give to teachers a decent allowance which would attract enough of them into the schools to ensure full-time teaching for our youngsters.
The duty of a Member of Parliament is to fight for the interests of the people he represents. I shall do so at every opportunity. London Members and others will fight for the interests of their constituents against what we believe has become one of the most deplorable Departments of a most deplorable and totally inadequate Government.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) said in opening the debate, and I wish to call attention to the almost impossible position in which local authorities are put this year. I know of no past


occasion when they have had to face a situation as difficult as that of today.
Local authorities are trying to draw up future estimates, but it is only now that they are able to discuss the nature of the cuts being imposed upon them. Local government reorganisation will affect many authorities, particularly those outside London. In my constituency we are still awaiting the Minister's reply on our comprehensive education proposals. Such matters, as well as staff difficulties in education offices, make enormous problems for local authorities.
One problem which has not yet been mentioned is that facing teachers trying to deal with the difficulties of older lads in their final additional year at school, which is one of great difficulty, educationally and socially. It imposes great pressures and problems on the teachers. Unhappily, in many cases it has not been possible to provide the facilities which these older pupils need.
There is a difficulty in my constituency, which must be common to many parts of the country, where facilities for practical education—such as' those dealing with engineering—have not been expanded to cater for the extra older children in the school. I have in mind the type of facilities which were badly needed and which schools had hoped to have available in time for the extra school year. But this has not been possible. Efforts are being made—very properly—to extend arrangements for linked courses with the nearby technical college in my constituency. This is a sensible arrangement which I hope could be extended in many cases. But so far it has proved to have had only limited possibilities.
There seems to be no hope of getting extra practical facilities in the immediate period ahead. The prospects may be even smaller because of the new cuts being demanded. Even the facilities for the linked courses may be in danger if the cuts are to proceed. If local education authorities are told that they must achieve a certain level of cuts, then the cuts must be made somewhere. Facilities such as I have mentioned, which I hope everyone agrees are of the greatest importance and value, may not be proceeded with. That would be another example of false economy.
There should be much better use of technical college facilities, linking with the higher forms in the ordinary secondary schools. It is foolish to duplicate facilities. Nevertheless, using existing staff and facilities imposes certain extra costs.
I do not recall any time since the war when local education authorities have had to face a more nearly impossible task.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I apologise for not being present for the earlier part of the debate. I was in a Select Committee concerned with overseas development, where my attendance was necessary.
I am glad to follow, later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox). Many of his constituents are parents of children attending two schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth, in which I taught for 13 years. I am pleased to hear that the Minister also has a child at school there. The Minister's hon. Friends would no doubt wish to see me back in my job as a teacher, while my hon. Friends may wish to see me on the other side of the House in the not-too-distant future. If the Minister's hon. Friends have their desire fulfilled I may have some share of responsibility for his child's education, and for trying to help and encourage teachers, who are under great strain and have been under enormous strain for the past five years at least, in coming to terms with the difficult situation in London.
My hon. Friend has described the situation admirably. It is a question not only of numbers and equipment but also of morale. Many teachers say that "they"—whether the head, the education authority or the Government—do not understand what the situation is all about. In education it is the personal electrification between persons that provides the quality of education in the last resort. Physical difficulties can sometimes be overcome, but not if the people who create the difficulties appear to be distant, or bureaucratic, or not to understand the problems of those concerned. That is what is happening in London. For too long the Government have compounded the problem, particularly in their attitude to the London allowance.
I shall refer to the problems in the London Borough of Ealing, part of which I represent. The announcement of the cuts in education expenditure has meant that there are many problems to be faced. The Minister may not have come to grips with some of them. My local authority is in the middle of a comprehensive reorganisation programme which was sanctioned by the Secretary of State and is due to start in September of this year. But school rolls are rising, and secondary school rolls will go on rising for some years.
The "roofs over heads programe", has been proved to be an essential part of the comprehensive reorganisation programme. In the announcement of the cuts it was stated that the programme would not be affected. But I understand from my local sources that it is possible that while the programme will be protected there will be a more rigorous examination of applications under that heading, and that the "roofs over heads" applications will be re-examined and re-vetted.
I do not understand how the Minister can assure us that the programme will be protected. It is an integral part of a planned programme. I criticised it because it was not good enough, and parents in my constituency are complaining because it does not provide the necessary degree of flexibility. The Minister says that the programme is protected, but I am told by local sources that there is a possibility of re-vetting and a reexamination of what is meant by "roofs over heads".
There can be argument about how much is net improvement and about how much is necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that the criteria for "roofs over heads" will not be altered. This is of particular importance to the Bordeston-Elthorne School, Brentside School and the former Greenford Grammar School.
The second difficulty in my borough concerns minor works. Local authorities know from the circular that the minor works allocations up to 30th June this year are protected. But the onward programme after that is also very important. If education authorities are to suffer massive cuts in minor works grants and do not know for another couple of months or so what they are, and what

they can spend after 30th June, the whole programme to provide these necessary extra facilities will be thrown out of joint.
Everybody knows how difficult it is even to get a builder to put in a tender, let alone to keep up a programme. If the Minister does not let local authorities know very soon what their minor grant allocations are after 30th June, irrespective of how big they are, the whole programme will be thrown out of gear. I hope that the Ministry will not take too long to vet the programmes and that the Minister will assure us that what he will permit—it may be small—will be known as soon as possible.
The third problem which has arisen in my borough concerns the hiring rather than purchasing of equipment and accommodation. One of the paradoxes of our education system is that the Government restrict what local authorities can spend of their own money. My authority has partly got round that problem, quite legally, by hiring or hire-purchasing certain equipment for the schools, as well as huts and other accommodation. This form of hire purchase is perhaps not the best way of obtaining the facilities, but it has the merits of avoiding some of the capital restrictions which the Government place on those necessary facilities.
My borough has been able to do that by putting down a certain proportion of the capital cost and paying off the rest over 20 years, and my constituency has benefited by an agreement to build a sports hall at the Twyford Comprehensive School. But the plan will be thrown out of gear by the Chancellor's changing the regulations on that sort of arrangement. The requirement is now for a down payment of a third, instead of only a modest proportion, and the remainder has to be paid over a much shorter period, of about three years. That means that the sort of facilities the borough expected to be able to provide, and had gone some way to providing, will not be provided or will have to be provided at a disproportionate cost to the rates.
I hope that if the Minister takes that point he will have a word with the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and seek to provide exemption for the provision of educational facilities. Incidentally, I do not


accept the Ministry's criterion of what is educationally necessary. I speak for most teachers when I say that it does not know anything about it, although it may know what the Treasury will allow. Without such exemption, more of the ratepayers' money will have to be spent than necessary.
The Chancellor may say that it is nothing to do with the Government, but it has everything to do with them in this case. First, they will not allow authorities to spend the money. Secondly, when authorities have got round that problem by a form of hire purchase, the Government have restricted that source of finance for what are fundamentally educational requirements.
My maiden speech was on education, when I deplored the difficulties facing London teachers. I hope that this speech will not be my last. In the past four years the London situation has become far more difficult. Some of my former colleagues told me only last week that they can see no way out for education in London in the next four or five years. The increasing inability of teachers to stay in London or obtain houses in London means that cumulatively the proportion of experienced trained teachers who have been in the schools for four or five years—they are the ones who count—is going down and down.
The result in human terms, which I know the Minister understands, is becoming more and more plain. I hope that he at least will experience some of the difficulties by his own son having to be sent home from school, which is happening to many children in London today, and that he will prevail on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do something about the situation.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) suggested that the present exercise was something that Oppositions could be expected to undertake in this kind of debate. I regard what we are discussing as very important, and I want to put the debate in its proper context by referring to two considerations.
I grew up in a community where we believed that education was not only the key to the quality of life but the

instrument for social change, and that with a true education the community would be able to make automatic progress to a better quality of life and improved material well-being.
I find that today there is growing disillusionment with the results of education. I mix with parents and teachers, and I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Hatton) said about the morale of teachers. I have never known so many of them to be frustrated. Some are bitter, and many are angry. I think it is true to say that many dedicated teachers have lost confidence in the future. They are not sure where we are going. I do not place the blame at the door of any Government. Fundamental changes are taking place that have caused that reaction from the teaching profession.
Part of the cause is salary, but part of it is the changed status of the teacher in the community. The pace of change has been very rapid over recent years, and the instability of society has made teaching a much more difficult task than at any time in the history of public education.
I am fortunate in the north. Over and over again I recognise the stability of the community in the places I represent. The population of the biggest town in my constituency is less than 12,000. I still talk to teachers who have taught two generations, who have taught the fathers and mothers of the children they are now teaching. Those places have a continuity and stability sadly lacking in many of our big cities, particularly London.
The doubt about the usefulness of education, the basic disillusionment with schools, colleges and universities, have resulted in the teaching profession seeming to be more uncertain today than at any time in my life. Values and attitudes that we have taken for granted over the years are being questioned and challenged. The school often finds itself isolated, trying to inculcate values and attitudes that have obviously been rejected by the world which it is preparing its pupils to enter.
Secondly, we must recognise that the automatic growth which we took for granted is something which we can no longer assume. I believe that we have


reached the end of that era. Britain has always enjoyed cheap food, cheap energy and cheap raw materials. For a number of reasons that era has come to an end. Therefore, we must be much more concerned about the priorities in our public life. Obviously, we must give great consideration to the use which we make of our resources in matters such as education.
My hon. Friends have spelled out the effect of the cuts in their constituencies. Lest we be accused of exaggeration, I remind the Minister that The Times Educational Supplement said:
Even in a world driven dizzy by spiralling inflation, this is a huge sum.
That is a reference to the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in December. It is clear that Britain's educational system faces one of the grimmest years in living memory. Sir William Alexander says:
These are far and away the worst cuts in my professional life.
I do not believe, whether or not there is a General Election and whatever Government come into power, that cuts in education of the kind which we are talking about can be easily overcome. It is not something which will merely last for six months. All the prizes which we have talked about for the last three years in terms of booming Britain will not be restored in six months. That is a situation which we must face when we determine the use of educational resources at our disposal.
A great education Minister, the late George Tomlinson, once said that without teachers we could go back to barbarism in two generations. It seems that many teachers feel that they are being made to fight a losing battle. They feel that they are fighting without the support of those who in the past they could expect to support them. Elitists and reactionaries, as well as honest doubters, are articulate in decrying education. Many good folk who have spent years in the service now want to dismiss reluctant learners from our secondary schools. They feel that they should be able to leave. We are using the arguments about the last year at school which was heard in this House and outside when Ellen Wilkinson decided that the school leaving age should be raised.
These matters are having a disheartening effect on teachers in general. One teacher, for example, has stated:
We have put up with impossible conditions long enough. We could put up with them for a bit longer, but only if we knew we were going to get a new school and that work had started.
That is a statement from a teacher who has been in a school which has been denied the educational facilities which many take for granted. That teacher has been loyally serving the community. Again, following many promises, the rebuilding of that school has not been started. Nobody knows when it will be started.
There is nothing more depressing than promises being made and then suddenly bluntly withdrawn by the Chancellor without consulting anybody. It seems that £180 million will be taken from the educational bill.
In the county of Durham there are five primary schools, including two aided schools, which are affected by the latest measure. I had a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) reminding me that in an area in his constituency, where youngsters live in unpleasant conditions, where they have had a raw deal all their lives, the urgent remodelling of a primary school and the replacement of a secondary school has been axed under the cuts announced by the Chancellor.
The Minister made a speech about education. He said that the major problems of secondary education are not resources but difficulties of philosophy, discipline and organisation. Teachers are getting tired of people who travel the country talking about the dedication of teachers and suggesting that it is the personal quality of teachers that matters and nothing else. It is true that the personal quality of a teacher is probably more important than almost anything else. At the same time adequate resources, the provision of necessary equipment, generous staffing at difficult schools and support from the Department of Education and Science and the local education authorities are all necessary factors if teachers are to do their job adequately.
One of my fears about the present cuts is that local authorities will find it easier to delay filling posts and to limit


recruitment to present levels, in spite of all the circulars that go from the Department, than to cut the limited amount of resources available for cutting after all statutory duties have been carried out. Sir William Alexander said:
An extra 20,000 teachers are due to be employed this year in addition to all replacements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) reminded us that chief education officers have said that when all the procurables are cut by 10 per cent. they will find that they have achieved little more than half the required saving.
LEA's are faced with a terrible dilemma. I have been the chairman of an education authority. I have attended pruning committees before fixing the rates in a county borough. I have had notes from borough treasurers and finance committees suggesting that certain economies must be made. Of course, manoeuvrability is limited. The budget for County Durham is £42 million. It is estimated that at least £36 million is outside the control of the county education authority unless it starts sacking teachers, which it has no intention of doing.
If we are to make any real economies on the remainder it means that all kinds of cuts must be made involving the morale of the teaching profession and the efficiency of the schools. It is not exaggerating to say that many LEA's are faced with a difficult choice. They either appoint all the teachers expecting to be appointed and appoint replacements up to full strength, including all the off-quota part-timers and married-women-returners, about whom I hope the Minister will comment because I fear what will happen in that respect, or they will choose to starve the schools of all the material and equipment which they need and let buildings go to rack and ruin by postponing much needed repair and maintenance.
That is a cruel dilemma to inflict on local education authorities. Obviously, we will get the worst of all worlds because we will get a bit of both economies. It is no wonder that teachers are tired of all the reports and all the ambitious schemes which are put forward which suggest education innovations. It is my experience that they all go to the local

education authorities and into the staff rooms, and that there is never an indication from the Department about how the resources are to be provided.
I represent a constituency in the northern region. Such regions have been first distressed areas and then development areas. They still suffer most by the kind of blanket cuts which have been imposed by the Chancellor through the Department of Education and Science. The Minister may have seen a Pelican paperback entitled Your Local Education. It was reviewed in the northern Press last week. The northern region was the basis of the statistics and the arguments which are to be found in it.
We are reminded in the book that in the Northern region fewer children stay on at school or go on to higher education. Some local education authorities in the northern region have the lowest educational resources in the country. The statistics clearly show that educational provision differs dramatically from region to region. Such regions as the northern region come out badly from the situation in terms of pupil-teacher ratio, expenditure on books, further education and other facilities.
This has nothing to do with the generosity of the education committee, nor is it related to the care they display over their educational services. In the north of England I know that some authorities are more than willing to give their children the best possible education, but their efforts are related to rateable values—in other words, to the wealth of the community—and all too often the disparity grows and is self-perpetuating. A smaller number of sixth forms means smaller grants from central Government. Therefore, the cuts are falling more heavily on the regions. The northern region struggles to catch up with the rest of the country, and because we have not had a large influx of population we shall have to keep our buildings a great deal longer. The priorities appear to favour the South-East and other more affluent parts of the country.
Durham is particularly mentioned in research set out in the pages of the Pelican book which I have already mentioned. That research conflicts with the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science throughout the


country. The research provides clear evidence of the fact that the availability of resources makes a great deal of difference. Children do better when they are given better facilities and when resources and provisions for their education are generous. The fact that resources are now being withdrawn will bring harm to the children who most need education.
I should like to deal with a problem which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I refer to the raising of the school leaving age. I am wholly in favour on the Government's action over the school leaving age and I would defend it on any platform. It concerns the very children who should be at school. I am sorry to say that there are a number of my colleagues in the teaching profession who have now joined the doubters. It may well be that the media, particularly in the northern region, has made a meal of it in saying that there are many awkward, anti-social pupils and reluctant learners.
But, whatever the school leaving age, we have always had reluctant learners. There have always been difficulties in the last year of education. When teachers are trying to cope with the raising of the school leaving age, it is a tragedy that resources and equipment are being restricted. Suggestions for improving curricula and teaching methods to make the extra time at school more relevant involve the very items which will now have to be cut.
I have never believed that we as teachers, or anybody else in the education service have the right to say to any boy or girl, "School can do nothing for you. You must go." The great test is that we should make what we are doing in our schools relevant, useful and attractive to all pupils. I could take t he Minister to schools where ambitious, though not costly, plans have been put forward to make the last year more relevant in terms of the outside world. I refer to school visits, in-service training, out-of-school activities in industry, and the like, all of which need extra resources devoted to them. This will now be impossible. These matters will be put in cold storage and will make teachers even more dispirited and disillusioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned the pilot experiment in the five areas which arose from suggestions in the James Report. We now know what happened to that. That looks like going into cold storage, too. If there is a choice for a local authority either to spend money on a pilot experiment or some innovation or to cut the basic supply of paper and materials in schools, then obviously the basic supply must come first.
My last point relates to the private sector. I believe that this country faces a new challenge because we have come to the end of an era. People were prepared to make sacrifices as long as they felt there was a sense of fairness in the community. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his December budget missed a great opportunity—and I am sure that this will be the view of many people when they look back on that mini-budget—to spread the burden and to put it particularly on those who can most bear it.
I am not running away from the challenge which has been made in terms of consumer spending against public expenditure. I have been privileged to work in schools in working-class areas and I know that parents value very highly their children's education. The doubling of a child's pocket money is not half as valuable as making sure that the child goes to a good school where he has a better education and gets a real opportunity to develop. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by clobbering the public sector to help private spending, will punish those very children who are in most need of community help.
I wish to put one or two questions to the Under-Secretary of State. More than one-fifth of private sector costs are paid for out of private funds in various ways. In the direct-grant sector some £17 million out of a total of £27 million comes from the Department of Education and Science and local education authorities together. Last autumn an increase of 11 per cent. in central Government grant was made by the Secretary of State. We have had no indication at all whether the private sector is to be called upon to make any contribution to the sacrifice that is being demanded of the public sector.


Indeed, The Times Educational Supplement suggested that the private sector would be better off after the budget. I suggest that this requires an answer in the House.
I believe that we are facing a crisis in education—a crisis of educational thinking as well as in the supply of the necessary resources—if our children are to have the opportunities they deserve. Education is threatened not only by cuts but by a lack of confidence in the future, and also by disillusionment. We must give education a greater priority in the future than we have done in the past. I still believe that it is the key to the good life. The normal decencies and quality of life are related to our education service. People will pay so long as they feel that they are not being asked to pay more than their share, and if they feel that all our children are given full opportunity to reach their full potential.
I hope that the Minister will deal seriously with the many points that have been put to him. I hope that he will understand that this is not just an Opposition exercise in politics, but is an exercise displaying genuine concern for the future of the education service.

6.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): In the early part of his speech the hon. Member for Durham, Northwest (Mr. Armstrong) made a number of remarks with which I find myself very much in agreement. He made wise remarks about the social background to today's education problems and also said something which struck me as true when he described this as an important debate.
As a junior Minister answering a debate other than an Adjournment debate for the first time, I naturally think that this is an important debate. It is the first chance that the House has had to discuss the very important impact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures of December on the educational service. It is right that we should have a debate, which perhaps has run a bit longer than debates should in the course of the Consolidated Fund, but it has given us a chance to look at many points.
I cannot hope to answer all the many issues that have been raised and I hope the House will understand, particularly as we have heard there are many other hon. Members who want to speak on other subjects during the rest of the night. Those points which are specifically of a constituency nature and about schools I shall deal with in correspondence. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) that we are paying particular attention to the question of projects which are part needs and part requirements in considering the right way to deal with them.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) who opened the debate, talked about "cuts, confusion and chaos". I believe that the debate will be valuable if at least some of the confusion which seems to surround the issue is reduced. Frankly I want to try to help reduce any confusion.
An important point which has to be made, and which the Opposition have not fully understood, is that the aim of the Chancellor's measures in December was in particular to reduce pressure on those things which use energy. That is why he had to adopt the specific financial measures which he adopted. I beg hon. Members to bear that in mind. It was an attempt by the Chancellor to reduce the pressure on energy just as our earlier postponement measures were an attempt, again equally justified, to reduce pressure on the overheating that we have in the building industry.
I hope that as I speak on the subject I shall not prove myself to be in any way complacent, but hon. Members have talked in terms of these cuts as being quite unprecedented in the history of our education service. Therefore I will quote briefly a statement by Professor John Vaizey in The Guardian on 8th January, when he said:
First, then, it is not as Sir William Alexander is reported to have said, the worst cuts in his lifetime. He was born in 1905. The cuts in 1921, 1931, 1950–51, were more severe as a proportion of expenditure then.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall the famous Dame Florence Horsbrugh cuts, which many of us in teaching remember only too well, which were aimed at a 5 per cent. reduction but which, after a


great deal of effort achieved only 2 per cent.? Does he not think that the Government should take lessons from making such cuts in educational expenditure?

Mr. Raison: No one doubts the difficulty of making cuts in educational expenditure. It is true that in total the reductions were large, because that is what the situation requires, and the education share, as one of the biggest spenders, was bound to be large, too. Education takes about 14 per cent. of all public expenditure and, even when reductions have been made, the sum planned to be spent on education from public funds in England and Wales in 1974–75 will still be very big. Including universities, local libraries, museums and galleries the sum will approach £3,500 million.
I shall say a word or two in explanation of the steps which have been taken. The Chancellor's cuts, as the House knows, are of 20 per cent. on capital expenditure and 10 per cent. on recurrent expenditure in the form of procurement—that is, goods and services, other than pay.
I will take capital spending first. Although considerable cuts have had to be made in education building programmes to achieve the saving of 20 per cent. in expenditure in 1974–75, those building projects programmed as providing essential new places—what the Department calls basic needs—may go ahead. The definition of need is unchanged, although need projects will have to be scrutinised closely. For England they are worth £101 million in the remainder of 1973–74 and £100 million in 1974–75. The programme for special schools is going ahead too. This programme, of course, provides places for children suffering from various kinds of handicap and I am sure there will be general agreement in the House that we are right to maintain this programme. This programme is worth about £14 million in the rest of 1973–74 and £18 million in 1974–75. These figures cover England and Wales.
Then there is the minor works programme which local education authorities rightly value so much. This was admittedly subject to the three months' moratorium but the moratorium is now over and the programme has been retained

intact. The allocations for 1st January to 30th June were announced on 31st December and the minor works include the provision of temporary classrooms, alterations and adaptations to ease local pressures on accommodation or to provide better working conditions. These are all important and we can rightly claim that we have enabled them to proceed.
Next, I shall deal with pre-school provision. The education White Paper of December 1972 introduced a programme for expanding the provision for under-fives beginning with a building programme in 1974–75. This was an educational advance of great importance, and one which I, as a member of the Plowden Committee, naturally welcomed. The 1974–75 under-fives building programme will start in July and its value, at some £17 million for England and Wales, remains as planned in the education White Paper.
Therefore, those people who talk in terms of the White Paper being a thing of the past are wrong. There has been no reduction here. Indeed, as with building for basic needs, building for special schools and minor works, there are areas where things are still very much on the move.
The total value of all these programmes in the remainder of 1973–74 is about £129 million and in 1974–75 about £180 million. Furthermore, as was announced in the Departmental Circular 15/73, a limited building programme for higher and further education for 1974–75 will be announced shortly. Thus, despite the pressing need for economy, the Government have preserved a building programme for each sector of the education service. Out of programmes for the remainder of 1973–74 and for 1974–75 totalling some £570 million well over £300 million has been preserved, the loss falling mainly on higher and further education and the improvements programme for school building. I do not want to play down the disappointment and difficulty which this entails, particularly in areas like Durham and Manchester, but I am sure that we have got our priorities right overall, and I think we can point with fairness to what has already been achieved so far in the area of primary school improvements.
Labour Members know perfectly well that this was something which their Government were never able to tackle. I remind them simply that 122 primary improvement programmes costing £14·9 million have started this year on top of the £60 million-worth in 1972–73. This is a real achievement, and those who are trying to pretend that we are doing nothing in this area are doing education and the Government no sort of justice.
May I turn to the recurrent savings for 1974–75? Unlike the savings on capital expenditure, where the immediate financial effect on the local authorities is very small, being nearly the first year's loan charges on the value of the work held over, the saving of £72 million on recurrent expenditure has an immediate impact on the rate support grant for 1974–75.
I have no wish to pretend that it will be easy for the local education authorities to make this reduction. It will not. But in some respects the authorities do have room for manoeuvre in that they have moved more quickly in taking up some of the policies set out in the education White Paper of December 1972 than the Government intended. For example, there is evidence that some authorities are admitting children in the under-five age group in advance of suitable provision and, in some cases, are admitting them full time more freely than was recommended in the education White Paper.
There are some authorities which do not seem to have succeeded yet in acting on the view of the Government, expressed in the education White Paper and supported by the local authorities in the pooling committee, that the financing of higher education institutions should assume that student/staff ratios would average about 10:1 by the end of the decade. Here then are two areas—the admission of under-fives and student-staff ratios in advanced further education—where, for some authorities certainly, economies can be made without damage to the standards of the service.
Another area in which, to judge from 1972–73 out-turn figures, it appeared that the rate of increase was likely to be significantly in excess of that judged adequate in the education White Paper was expenditure on non-teaching costs.

Even before the Chancellor's 17th December statement, the forecasts of future expenditure would have had to face a reduction here. Now, in addition we have the cut of £48 million to be borne by procurement. I do not disguise that this will present the authorities with very real difficulties. The hon. Member for Manchester Exchange (Mr. Hatton) spoke from his own experience of what this means. Let me explain what this figure represents.
The total provision for current expenditure on procurement is about £680 million. The 10 per cent. cut has not applied across the whole of that. We have exempted some £200 million to cover rent and rates and certain important services to which I shall refer. The reduction falls on the remaining £480 million. It is, of course, true that, under our block grant system, we do not control in detail the way in which authorities spend their money. They are not bound to make savings on the items which come under the £480 million or not to make savings on the other items, but we hope that they will follow our guidance in making their choices, and at least the resources we are making available should enable them to do so.
The £48 million saving is intended to be made not simply in the schools and colleges but in libraries, museums and galleries maintained by the local authorities as well. The areas of expenditure the Government had in mind in specifying procurement are repairs and maintenance of buildings and grounds, heating and lighting and other services, books, including books for public libraries, and teaching materials, renewal and replacement of furniture and equipment, transport of pupils and equipment and materials, other than food, for the school meals service. It is from these heads of expenditure that the Government believe the saving can be made, though we recognise that it will not be possible to make a straight 10 per cent. cut across the board. To secure the savings will demand from the authorities every resource of judgment, skill and good management.
The House will note, however, that my list of items on which savings might be made does not include staff of any kind, rent and rates, food for the school meals service, discretionary grants to students, the payment of fees for pupils


at non-maintained schools, maintenance allowances and grants for clothing. This means that expenditure on irreducible items such as rent and rates, on staff and on assistance to individuals has been protected. As I have said, it is up to each authority to decide how it shall make the recurrent savings required, but I hope that I have shown that, as with the capital savings, the Government have been concerned to preserve the essentials of the service and, indeed, rather more. I might say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) that there is no reason to suppose that the youth service and adult education must wither away as a result of this.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Secretary of State attended a meeting at which she heard it positively put to her by the local authority representatives that the savings that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting are not possible. She did not enter into that discussion. How can we preserve all staff and all salaries without reducing the service?

Mr. Raison: We believe that, with wise judgment, looking at the situation across the board, it will be possible to do so. Perhaps, in answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, I could put in a plea for one item that I have mentioned among those which are at risk, and that is school books. I hope that authorities will do all they possibly can to spare them, even if it means making some other cuts elsewhere.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the payment by local authorities to non-maintained schools would be carried on. Does this mean that any fees that they pay to direct-grant schools should not be cut, and will the Government cut the direct grant itself to those schools?

Mr. Raison: It does mean that they should not be cut. I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) that there is no proposal to cut the direct grant. Again, I must point out that the philosophy behind these measures is that they are to do with the pressure on energy resources. I would ask hon. Members to try to take the energy problem seriously.
Finally, the universities will of course have to contribute their share to the economies that have to be made. The public expenditure White Paper already announced a decision to withhold a part of the supplementation of their grants for price increases in 1973 that the universities would have hoped to receive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in touch with the University Grants Committee about the further reductions that will now be necessary in the building programmes and in recurrent and equipment grants. We shall give the House the details as soon as they are settled.
I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford said about student grants and teachers' salaries, but these problems fall outside the scope of this debate.
The Government recognise that all these savings will impose some delay on the progress of the education service, but we feel that education must bear its share of the economies that the country has to make. There is every reason and every justification for responding seriously, as most hon. Members have done, to what is a serious situation. I have much sympathy with the local education authorities in the difficult job which they have to do. But there is no reason to respond hysterically or irresponsibly. I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central did. There might have been some recognition by Labour Members of Labour's own record in many of these things, notably improvements.
We should, after all, remember that, despite its problems and imperfections, our educational system has great strength. As Professor Vaizey put it in the article I quoted:
… education is now far more adequately provided for than it ever has been in the past. There are many more students, pupil/ teacher ratios are better than ever before, the proportion of new and remodelled buildings is exceptionably high.
Let us also remember that in some of our education problems, the difficulty is not simply one of resources.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West referred to something that I have said on this. I do not decry the importance of resources. Of course they are absolutely vital in everything we do, but many people—perhaps most nowadays—would accept that the things which


cause most concern today are to do with educational standards and also social stress and discipline. Of course resources are important here, but so, too, is the frame of mind, the philosophy if one likes, with which we approach them. I believe that we can all work more closely together to provide teachers—who, after all, bear the brunt of these problems—with the moral as well as the physical support which they need.
My hope is that in spite of all our difficulties—economic and otherwise—1974 will prove to be a year when the true deep-seated strength of British education—[Interruption.]—some hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but others know that what I am saying is true and that it is one of the splendours of this country. I believe that this true deep-seated strength will assert itself, and that the professionalism of our teachers at their best and the skill and dedication of the local authorities at their best will make this, overall, a year of advance rather than of standstill.

Mr. Ronald Brown: On a point of order. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has not once referred to the fact that children in my constituency attend school only for two-and-a-half days a week. Am I not entitled to have some comment from the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. It is not my business to tell the Minister what to say.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Somebody should do so.

Orders of the Day — IMPROVEMENT GRANTS (WALES)

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Neil McBride: It falls to me to raise a subject which affects the happiness of thousands in my home city of Swansea and thousands of good Welsh men and women throughout the Principality. In these days of cut-backs in housing, particularly in the public sector, and the inability of many Welsh people to secure a mortgage from either a building society or a local authority, it follows that the improvement grant is a matter of the first importance in preserving the existing housing stock.
The improvement grant was designed to add to the amenities of houses whose fabric is sound and by so doing to extend the existing useful life of those buildings. But two things, separately and together, will defeat the intention and frustrate the legitimate wish of many people in Wales, particularly those in Swansea, which is the second city of Wales. The first of these is the shortage of materials, and the second is the blind insistence of the Tory Government that all improvement work done under improvement grants shall be completed by 23rd June 1974. Here I must couple with the Tory Government the Secretary of State for Wales, because he has executive responsibility for housing.
That date is a matter of grave concern because Wales has the largest percentage of owner-occupation in the United Kingdom. The Government's insistence on the completion of works financed by discretionary grants by 23rd June is shortsighted and will add to the frustration of these owner-occupiers who believe that a discretionary grant automatically entitles them to achieve a lifetime's ambition by adding to the amenities already possessed by their houses, which are among the best-maintained in the United Kingdom.
The shortage of materials might be the deciding factor in carrying the completion of the discretionary grant works beyond the announced completion day. That is the fault neither of the builder nor of the owner-occupier. They are the victims of circumstances over which neither has control.
Another factor that merits consideration is that discretionary grant work might be completed to everyone's satisfaction by 23rd June but for a vital sewerage connection that cannot be made until after the completion date. That is the fault neither of the people concerned nor of the local authority, but it involves a cut of one-third in the discretionary grant. I cite a case in Cefn Road in the Llansamlet ward of my constituency. I am assured that the works will be completed by the nominated date but for a vital sewerage connection. I absolve the Swansea City Council from any blame. My constituents wish for a better phased-out completion process for the discretionary grant work than the chaos which has been caused by the Government's insistence that all the work must be completed by the nominated date. I have here a letter from the


City Estate Agent to the constituents concerned which bears that out.
For an orderly planned phasing-out of work approved for a discretionary grant entitlement there should have been an announced date beyond which applications would not be accepted. The Tory Government have created in peoples' minds the belief that the application for and the award of a discretionary grant are the necessary preludes to house improvement, and the realisation later by many applicants that non-completion of the work by 23rd June will deprive them of one-third of the grant has hit them like a thunderclap.
I remind the Minister that finding another 25 per cent. of the moneys required for discretionary grant work is a vastly different matter from securing 50 per cent. of these moneys if the work is not completed when £1,000 is the value of the average current discretionary grant. For many people in Swansea and in Wales as a whole this is a tragedy. Many families will be affected, yet the Government are bereft of compassion.
Another factor which militates against an applicant meeting the deadline of 23rd June is when the builder to whom the applicant entrusts the work in all good faith to complete to proper standards takes on work which over-taxes his capacity. The Government have not thought out this scheme.
It is of vital importance that as many discretionary grant projects as possible be completed, in view of the tight mortgage position. That would be an insurance for the future against the ever-lengthening council house application lists. The owner-occupier believes as I do, that with remedial work the useful life of his well-built house will be extended for a considerable time. If there is no extension of the scheme beyond the announced completion date, in the next year or two houses will fall into decay and there will be more applications for council houses and mortgages and yet more pressure on local authorities to build council houses. Many people are unable to undertake the financial commitment of a mortgage because of the uncertain industrial and economic position of the country, for which the Government are fully to blame.
I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 4 of a letter dated 14th

December 1973, signed by Mr. T. Rees, from the Welsh Office to the Swansea City Council, which emphasises that the higher rate of grant was never intended to do more than give a short, sharp boost to house and area improvement in the development and intermediate areas. Bui the people of Wales wish to take more advantage of this facility, as is shown by the number of applicants.
I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for information, but in a painfully brief answer which was not entirely accurate he said that he was unable to give this information. I shall tell him. In the first half of 1973 16,839 dwellings were improved under the scheme. In 1972 a total of 27,923 houses were improved. This shows how much the scheme has been used and how valuable it is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must bear full responsibility for housing affairs in Wales. The failure of the Government's housing programme is shown up by the desire that has been generated for the improvement of existing houses. In the first three months of this year only 648 public sector houses were started and only 788 completed. These figures are absolutely disgraceful.
This makes it all the more necessary for the Government to have a change of heart and grant an extension to the final date for applications. This would be a good insurance premium, reducing local authority housing lists and building expenditure while retaining in good repair houses which have shown a remarkable ability to withstand wind and weather. There are miles of terraced houses in Wales which could benefit.
In a letter dated 14th December and addressed to my city council it was stated that the Government were determined to concentrate resources in areas of the greatest need. I thought that the construction and maintenance of good buildings capable of withstanding the elements was a first priority. Perhaps I was wrong. The Welsh people have a good record of family life. They like to improve their homes. This would be a step in the right direction.
In a letter to the Welsh Office dated 12th December Swansea City Council requested special provisions for applicants unable to complete improvements before 23rd June. I support this without reservation as the Minister knows. Many local


authorities in Wales hold a similar view. Earlier I requested information from the Minister, but before I asked for it I already had the answers. If brevity is the soul of wit the answers we received from the Welsh Office are indeed soulful.
Applications are being received in Swansea at the rate of 80 per month. Those in the initial stages, awaiting inspection, represent a total value of £110,000. Those applications pending approval, awaiting details from the applicants, represented a total value of £1,576,000.
About one-third of all applications may not be proceeded with for various reasons. Taking this into account, the applications total 2,600. Probably 1,180 applicants will be unable to complete the improvement works before the terminal date. There are also 1,000 applicants actively interested but unable to complete the work. If we take an average figure of £1,000 in grant and there are 2,180 applications in Swansea, it will be seen that this amounts to £2,180,000. If people fail to complete the necessary works in time the grant will be reduced from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. The sum involved here is £726,000. This is a serious matter illustrating the great demand for a continuation of the scheme.
The Government have never apparently heard of the old adage about spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. I commend the moral to them but perhaps I should not commend morality when allegations of immorality come from behind the Minister on other occasions.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): What does that mean?

Mr. George Thomas: Ask Enoch.

Mr. McBride: Swansea City Council has approved 1,000 standard grants and made payments amounting to £79,600. This information could have been obtained as a result of my Written Question. But it was not. I am a realist. I accuse the Welsh Office of slothful ineptitude.
In a joint circular of 14th September the Secretary of State recommended that local authorities should pay careful regard to the capacity of builders. In

paragraph 5 of that circular responsibility was unloaded on to the applicant. Coming from a Government who have shown an amazing ability for shunning responsibility, this was not an unpardonable sin but a necessity.
The figures for the award of improvement grants are thrown into bold relief if we look at the percentage income figures for Wales as at the end of 1972. A total of 9·7 per cent. of the population had incomes of less than £1,400, 22·8 per cent. had incomes of less than £1,600 and 47·3 per cent. had incomes of less than £2,000. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than anyone else that Wales is a family nation. This scheme is a method of helping the family to maintain a good home. If an improvement grant is not given and a man is forced to take out a 25-year mortgage on another property he may well find difficulty in keeping up the payments. If he takes an extended repayment period he will be required to continue his payments for 57 years 2 months. Today's young people will be grandmothers and grandfathers in the next century before they have paid off their mortgages.
The alternative is to get grants to modernise and improve houses of this kind. In Wales, where houses are cheap, it is impossible to secure mortgages for these dwellings. It must not be forgotten than 61·8 per cent. of houses in the Principality are valued at £6,000 or less.
So it is that the Tory Government and the Secretary of State have a unique opportunity to undergo a change of heart and to provide for many people in Swansea and the Principality in general by giving them better housing tomorrow—which, after all, is what they promised—by extending the period from 23rd June, as public pressure demands. They can do it by passing another Housing (Amendment) Act. They have the opportunity. There is no reason for them to have an election to govern. What could they do better now when they have a majority than they could in the future?
This seems to be good sense at a time when builders are not rushing to tender for local authority house-building contracts, especially when the local authority house-building index has increased from 100 in the third quarter of 1970 to 180


in the second quarter of 1973 and when the Public Works Loan Board interest rate to local authorities varies between 12⅞ per cent. and 14¾ per cent.
All this throws into bold relief the necessity for an extension of the completion date for house improvement in Wales. There should be a less rigorous control of the improvement grant system, and the Secretary of State should make special provisions. I believe that applicants obtaining these grants should have a discretion extended to them after the announced date for the final receipt of applications so that work may be finished by 23rd June.
We live in a period when inflation, high prices, high rents and lowering living standards are described as "normal" by this Tory Government. However, the electorate may soon be asked to give their views, and it may be good electioneering if the Secretary of State announces that he will reconsider the possible extension of the period. I am sure that he is aware of the heavy ground-swell of opinion which favours this being done.
We are a family nation. The Secretary of State has been round the Principality and knows it to be self-evident that the people of Wales believe that the Government made a gross mistake in fixing the date at 23rd June. After all, he is a good politician who admits that he is wrong and redresses his error.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: If the Secretary of State were emboldened to introduce new legislation to amend the Housing Act so as to extend the time of the improvement grant system, he could do it very quickly The Opposition would welcome it, and it could complete all its stages in a very short time, even though the Prime Minister may be poised on the starting blocks to run away from Britain's other problems.
In considering improvement grants we have first to identify the problem. In that connection perhaps I might quote a few statistics relating to the town of Pontypridd. The 1971 Census revealed that one house in every eight lacked hot water, that more than one in five had no bathroom, and that many still had outside toilets. In addition, in the case of houses which are owner-occupied or

privately-rented, we find that houses which were built in the immediate aftermath of the war, when expectations in housing were lower and when materials were very much scarcer than they are today and with much better reason, need renewal and modernising to bring them up to standard by the addition of central heating, the installation of indoor toilets and so on.
It is clear that one of the most deprived classes of all is those occupying privately-rented homes. Unless there are improvement grants, there is no incentive for private landlords to modernise their property and make privately-rented accommodation tolerable for those who tenant it.
Privately-rented accommodation has declined as a percentage of the total housing stock every year this century. This is a hangover from the last century. Nevertheless, there are still many people in our valleys living in privately-rented accommodation who desperately want the standard of that accommodation made tolerable for them. As the improvement grant disappears, they see their hopes disappearing with it.
As regard owner-occupiers, we face the virtual collapse of the Government's housing policy. New housing starts are very much down. Completions are disastrous. Prices are escalating. There is every reason why the old terraced houses in our valleys should be preserved, modernised and made fit to live in in the 1970s. I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind the one in five and the one in eight which have not got what we regard as decent facilities in a modern society.
Then I ask the Secretary of State to consider the councils. Many councils owning houses have embarked upon ambitious general improvement schemes. They have undertaken to put in central heating and to install such facilities as indoor toilets. They are half way through those schemes. Because of two factors to which I will refer in a moment, they are desperately worried that the artificial time limit now put upon the end of the scheme will penalise them heavily.
The two factors are these. First, because of the shortage of labour, it was becoming very difficult to get work done by the date set. Builders were overburdened by the volume of work that


they found. Once an improvement grant was approved in principle, the work had to be done, and as a result people had long searches for builders to carry out the work.
The second factor is a new phenomenon. It is the chronic shortage of materials afflicting the building industry. Items like asbestos and chipboard are in very short supply, and the absence of them delays work which may already have been started.
In the Cowbridge rural district the local authority has embarked upon quite large renovations to its council housing stock. The absence of coal bunkers in order to move coal from one coal house which is being converted into a ready-made repository is causing a great deal of misery. It is causing work to hang round for much longer. It is causing disruption to householders whose lives are made a misery by the absence of materials, of labour and of quick completions.
It may be that the Secretary of State will say that he is not responsible for the shortage of labour and materials. However, it is an odd situation where a Government who come to power pledged to manage the economy better than any other in fact mismanage it to an even greater extent.
Granted that the Secretary of State has no responsibility for these shortfalls, he can help if he is willing to extend the time by which improvement grant works must be done so that they may continue without hardship staring many people in the face when they are denied the opportunity to modernise their homes. I ask the Secretary of State, in any new improvement grant system, to remedy two factors. I want to direct his mind to the future as much as to the present. The case for extending the time is overwhelming. I have never seen the justification for the date June 1974 which has been thrust upon us.
The first factor is that it should no longer be possible for a landlord or the owner of a house—certainly not a development company—to get improvement grants to renovate houses for sale, often moving out tenants for this purpose. This is particularly so in London, but it is not unknown anywhere else. They should not be allowed to effect improvements

with the aid of improvement grants and then sell the houses at inflated prices.
The ability of local authorities to refuse to give improvement grants for second homes should be strengthened and underlined by the Welsh Office. I do not accept the Nationalist argument that the only owners of second homes are Englishmen who come across our borders. After all, many distinguished Welshmen, including the Chairman of the new Welsh Language Commission appointed by the Secretary of State, are second-home owners in Wales. Many Nationalists also have holiday homes. That is not an argument that I find attractive, but at a time of admitted stringency in public expenditure we have the right to prevent the expenditure of improvement grants on second holiday homes. The Secretary of State would do well to look at that matter closely.
The second factor is that the vast majority of builders who have carried out improvement grant work have done it pretty well. But a minority of unskilled jobbing builders without qualifications have entered this sphere. I can list horrifying examples in my constituency of people who come to do work which they leave half done, saying that they will be back tomorrow, but are back a month tomorrow after pressure. Their work is unsatisfactory. The wrong pipes are connected up, and so on, floors are uneven, and doors do not fit. Some builders, a minority, are incapable of reaching the desired standard of improvement grant work.
Therefore, I hope that in any extended scheme that the Secretary of State may announce in answer to the debate he will also announce that councils will be given a better system for licensing builders to carry out this work and a greater ability to intervene to see that the desired work is carried out. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept that shoddy work of this kind, when people are expecting to transform older homes into new houses, causes great heartache. People have been driven to the verge of a nervous breakdown by the struggle to keep builders to their tasks. Therefore, I beg the Secretary of State to tell the House that he will extend the date for completion of improvement grant work and will continue a system which has been in operation since 1949 for the


betterment of Wales as a positive contribution to the solution of our housing problems.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) and Pontypridd (Mr. John) have referred to the practical problems that we hear about almost every Saturday morning in our surgeries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd struck a chord in me when he spoke about the shoddy builder—the chap with whom one tries to get to grips and to whom one writes letters to which he does not reply. Such a man is not covered by the National House Builders' Registration Council as is a new house builder. When one goes to the weights and measures department one finds how inadequate are the powers to control the practices which are indulged in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East put the debate in the context in which it ought to be taken—housing. There is no doubt that this winter we could face one of the worst housing crises in Wales for many years. I do not say that in any spirit of political partisanship. It emerges week after week from listening to people's housing problems.
During the last 18 months to two years the housing queue in my constituency has continued to grow. In my Saturday morning surgery I hear of many young married couples who are unable to obtain houses from the local authority or are unable to afford to buy one and improve it. The threat of homelessness or concealed forms of homelessness in Wales is extremely serious. It cannot be brushed aside by quoting and bandying about figures as the Minister of State has done periodically at Question Time. We must face this serious problem.
One form of concealed homelessness in Wales is what I call the "front room" family—the young married couple with perhaps a small child who have gone to live in the front room of their parents' home, usually a council house, creating overcrowding which leads to tension within the family, often the bust-up of the marriage, and one or other returning to his or her family. We have got not only a housing but a marital and domestic problem. I have heard this painful story many times in the last few months.
In 1972 and 1973 we witnessed the lowest council house building programme since the war. In those two years fewer council houses were built in Wales than in any year since 1946, the year after the war, with wartime shortages. It is an incredible situation.
The Government's defence has been that private house building has been making up for any shortfall in council house building. Whatever the figures over the past six or nine months have shown, I know from what people have reported to me that private house building in Wales is coming to a halt. House builders are not building. Indeed, some do not intend to complete houses that are half-built. The situation is disastrous. Council house building has fallen to its lowest figure since the war, and the alternative, private housing, which is not an alternative in most cases in our valley communities, is collapsing under the pressure of high interest rates and a mortgage famine.
In this context we should look closely at the withdrawal of the 75 per cent. improvement grant. It would be nonsense at this stage to withdraw it. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said that he could not understand the fixing of the date or the time conditions for the 75 per cent. grant. The grant was introduced originally because of high unemployment in the building industry together with the need for a rapid improvement in our housing stock. The reason for withdrawing the grant, according to Ministers who gave evidence before the Expenditure Committee, on which I was privileged to serve, was the overheated building and construction industries and the fact that during the last 12 months builders have not been available to do the work. That argument does not now stand. It looks as though the building and construction industries now face a deep recession with considerable unemployment. Therefore, the argument that the building industry is overheated is not valid.
Accepting the overheating argument, surely we should not impose artificial time limits for the completion of improvement work. It is not the fault of the owner-occupier who, in good faith, enters into an agreement with the local authority and a builder to complete works and pays for the improvements if he finds that the work cannot be completed by 23rd June 1974.


The Expenditure Committee—an all-party Select Committee—recommended that authorities should have discretion to extend the deadline in all cases where work has begun but cannot be completed by the given date. What many householders in our areas face is the fact that on 24th June 1974 they will have to find an extra 25 per cent. of the price for improvements to their homes. That will be the effect of removing the grant on this arbitrary basis.
Our argument on improvement grants goes further. We see the improvement of older housing stock as a crucial part of any housing policy. We acknowledge the success of the 75 per cent. grant scheme, and we have come to plead the Government's policy for them. We have come to see this as a success story, and because of the backlog of work our contention is that this idea should be continued. The Government's fig-leaf is the housing White Paper by which they intend to replace the 75 per cent. grant by preferential grants in housing action areas aad in general improvement areas, but that is no answer to the problem. What is more, that was the conclusion of the all-party Select Committee on Expenditure.
In its Tenth Report, the Expenditure Committee said that the housing action area approach and discrimination in favour of giving improvement grants only to those houses inside general improvement areas would lead to a lot of tension and arguments. One area just outside a general improvement area would get a 50 per cent. grant, while a similar area, with similar problems, would get a 75 per cent. grant because it was inside a general improvement area. The Committee saw no case for that distinction.
The Committee's view was that whole areas such as those in South Wales should be treated on a similar basis. It said in paragraph 65 of its report:
Equally the unified approach of GIA would cover too small an area. A sufficient solution would be a voluntary approach with a generous grant to aid the poorer owner-occupier.
The Committee found that there was an overwhelming case for maintaining the preferential grant not for parts of a local authority, or for areas of a local authority which are almost impossible to define, but

for whole regions, such as South Wales. That was the Select Committee's view, and it is a view that has been confirmed in all the evidence that has become available to us.
My hon. Friend referred to the 1971 Census. No one wants to deal in misery and difficulty. My hon. Friend referred to Pontypridd having one house in five without at least one major amenity. The figure for Merthyr is 30 per cent.—one-third of the total—without one of the major amenities, such as an indoor toilet, a bathroom, and so on. The problem is not confined to parts of the borough or to certain areas. It is a general problem in the valleys.
The idea of restricting preferential improvement grants to small defined areas such as general improvement areas or housing action areas which will be part of a local authority, or possibly the whole of a local authority area, is wrong and will not solve the problem. In my view, the Governments of both parties have adopted the right solution, which is to provide a strong inducement to get people to improve houses. The best value in housing in Wales is house improvement. The 75 per cent. grant scheme has proved a success, and it should be allowed to continue to operate.
But improvement grants should not be regarded as a substitute for new house building. At Question Time the Minister of State trots out figures for the number of improvement grants that have been applied for—it does not mean that the work has been completed ; merely that grants have been applied for—and says that they represent a marvellous success story for housing. The fact is that it is a sick joke in our areas where housing queues are growing and where the problem of homelessness is a serious threat to our valley communities.
A Bill could be rushed through in the next 24 hours—there would be all-party support for it—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to decide to alter this absurd deadline of June and extend the policy which both parties have supported, because house improvement is a major plank in any effort to solve the housing problems of Wales.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am sure that Opposition Members will


appreciate my reason for drawing attention to the absence of certain hon. Members from the benches opposite. I refer in particular to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards), who is well known for fallaciously drawing attention to the apparent—not actual—absence of Opposition Members. I say that in passing, knowing that my good words and felicitations will be conveyed to the appropriate quarter.
It is important that once again we should discuss this matter of improvement grants in Wales, and we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) for giving us the opportunity to do so. It is true that my hon. Friends accent is not quite Rhondda Valley, but it is equally true that he speaks with the sincerity and knowledge of a true son of Wales on these housing matters. The Secretary of State for Wales bears a heavy responsibility for the housing of the people of Wales, and it would pay him well on these occasions to listen to the true voice of Wales, whether it comes from Swansea, East, from Pontypridd, from Merthyr or from Rhondda, West.
I begin by referring to an answer given to me by the Minister of State. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is unwell and not able to be present. I am sure that the Secretary of State wishes that his hon. Friend were here so that he could take some of the burden off the right hon. and learned Gentleman's shoulders. The hon. Gentleman is becoming accustomed to carrying the burdens of the Secretary of State, and I am sure that our best wishes will be conveyed to the Minister of State.
In the reply to which I have referred the Minister of State said:
Many young couples today look to our older housing stock to provide their first house, often taking the opportunity to improve their new home with the generous grants available.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 910.]
A truer statement was never made by the Minister of State, and the Opposition agree with everything that he said in that answer because there is a great dependence on improvement grants throughout Wales. There is a greater need than ever for generous improvement grants, and the Government should continue with at least the present 75 per cent. rate if the older

housing stock of Wales is ever to be modernised.
It is important to consider the reasons why there is this tremendous dependence upon improvement grants in Wales. Why are we so dependent upon them? First, it is because in Wales there has been a catastrophic slump in council house building. That is not because councils do not want to build houses. In the main, it is because the present cost yardstick is totally unrealistic if councils are to build on the sites that are available.
The second reason why we depend on improvement grants is the fantastic rise in house prices. The statistics say that it is over 35 per cent. I remember what I paid for my terraced house in Tony-pandy. Similar houses to that for which I paid £1,300, which I thought exhorbitant, have risen in price to over £6.000. That is some indication of how even a typical Welsh valley terraced house has shot out of the reach of ordinary people in Wales. There is a massive increase in not only the price of older houses but the price of new houses. Some estate agents tell me that there has been a slight fall or steadying of prices recently, but from my observations in Rhondda it appears to me that even if that is so it is an insignificant movement. There is no indication that prices are returning to a reasonable level for the type of accommodation offered.
The third major calamity facing would-be house buyers in Wales is the rise in mortgage interest rates. If a young married couple manage to find a suitable house—which is not so easy—and if they are then fortunate enough to find a building society which is able to give them a mortgage, after making the calculations they find that the repayments required are far too high for them to contemplate. This affects not only new borrowers but existing borrowers, who thought that they knew the limits of their repayments. Borrowers find that mortgage repayments, instead of being an open sesame to home ownership at some time in the future, have now become millstones around their necks.
The Government cannot be absolved from blame for this problem. They published a pamphlet in 1970 entitled "A Better Tomorrow". It is a pamphlet which we shall use a great deal in the


next few months. I am not sure whether it was a printer's error. "A Better Tomorrow" was the manifesto of the Conservative Party. On the subject of housing it says:
The increase in the cost of new houses and the highest mortgage interest rates in our history have prevented thousands of young people from becoming owners of their own homes.
All those thousands who must have been deprived under the Labour Government must be on their knees every night praying that the next Government will be a Labour Government and that the people who wrote that pamphlet will explain why all their vague and empty promises have been torn to shreds. The Government have failed to deal with rising house prices and mortgage interest rates. We now find that local authorities and people in housing need are being forced to depend on improvement grants as the only hope of having a house which is fit to live in.
It is fair that we spend some time examining how these grants are working, what changes are needed and what changes the Government propose. Until some divine inspiration comes from somewhere, we must assume that the present Parliament will continue. The longer it continues, the bigger the disaster ; nevertheless, that is how we must act. In trying to ascertain what changes are proposed by the Government we at least have the advantage—if it be an advantage—of Cmnd. 5339, entitled "Better Homes—The Next Priorities". I hope that they will be a lot better than the last priorities.
This White Paper was apparently a statement of Government intent. The Government refer to
areas in Wales which are not subject to the same kind of concentrated housing stress characteristic of the worst areas in England but are nevertheless, for social and economic reasons, in need of special treatment to main-fain them as living communities".
We are, therefore, looking forward this evening to hearing some news of special treatment so that the communities in Wales can be maintained as living communities. At the conclusion of that White Paper appears one of the Government's famous promises:
Legislation to implement the proposals in this White Paper will be brought forward as quickly as practicable.

I want to know how quickly is "quickly" and how possible is "possible". We are sure (hat tonight we shall be told of this special treatment to which the people of Wales can look forward—we shall welcome it with open arms—for the housing problems to be dealt with as quickly as is practicable.
We need legislation. The problem is urgent and it is growing. An indication of the extent of the growth of the housing problem in Wales is that in Rhondda just over two years ago there were about 200 people on the housing waiting list. There was no sudden influx of people into the valley, yet we find that our housing waiting list is now one of 1,500 people. Similar increases have occurred in Merthyr, Pontypridd, Newport and almost any part of the Principality. The housing need is greater now than at almost any time since the war. It is no good the Secretary of State for Wales having responsibility for housing in Wales if he acts only as a duplication of the measures taken to deal with the problem in the rest of the United Kingdom. The problems are not identical. There is no overall United Kingdom problem. There are many differences. We need a considerable degree of flexibility in fixing improvement grants to meet not only the different needs of England and Wales but the varying needs within different areas of Wales.
For evidence of this need one only has to turn to the 1971 Census. The percentages in each case may have changed slightly, but the proportion is roughly the same. Regarding households without hot water, without a fixed bath and without an inside water closet, in Penarth urban district there were only 14 per cent. of such houses. In Pontypridd urban district there were 32 per cent. In Porth-cawl there were 8½ per cent., and in Port Talbot there were 18 per cent. In my own borough of Rhondda the figure was 50 per cent.
It seems evident that if different areas have such variations, the improvement grant scheme must somehow be tailored to meet these differing needs. The 1971 Census shows—I accept that there were marginal improvements then—that in Rhondda 21·8 per cent. of the houses had no hot water, 36·7 per cent. of houses had no fixed bath or shower, and 44·9 per cent. had no inside toilet.
We talk about "one nation". That is a phrase of which we shall soon hear much, as we did in 1970. We talk of this mystical "one nation" which was to be created by the Conservatives. It is an obscenity that these housing conditions have to be tolerated today. Those percentages mean that up to 50 per cent. of Rhondda's housing has no hot water, fixed bath or inside toilet. They mean that 15,000 families lack basic amenities and parents are prevented from raising their families properly.
We want to improve the houses of both owner-occupiers and the council. In the last four years about 4,700 applications for grants have been received in Rhondda alone. But it is grant completions that matter, and not grant approvals. At the present rate of completions, if we approve 1 million grants tomorrow it would not improve the housing stock unless many of them were completed quickly. In Rhondda we have boosted our rate of completions to about 300 a year. That is as far as we can go unless there is a considerable increase in training facilities for workers in the building industry. That is something to which the Secretary of State must address his mind. At the same time he might look at the "lump" system and remind his right hon. Friends that it is time they did something about it. At the present rate it would take 50 years to bring all the homes in Rhondda up to a reasonable standard. The figures I quote are not mine and they are probably accurate to 01 per cent. No one can suggest that this is the time to reduce the 75 per cent. grant. It is absolutely essential that the June 23rd deadline this year be extended.
We have heard about the shortage of building materials, which means that many people who have started the work will be unable to complete it in time. Surely those who have started it and are delayed through no fault of their own should in accordance with the Select Committee recommendations be allowed an extension of the deadline. There are thousands of applications in the pipeline. Some of them have been approved, some are being considered and on others work has started. If these people fail to meet the deadline they will lose one-third of their grant and that will make it impossible for many of them to afford the improvements.

Many of those who will be hit will be the elderly and those on the most modest incomes. If that happens there will be a hue and cry throughout the valleys at the unfairness that those who managed to jump in first were given 75 per cent. and that those who for financial or other reasons could not meet the deadline are to lose.
The fixed deadline puts considerable pressure on the applicants, the council and the builders to speed up the work. The applicant rushes in sometimes without the fullest consideration being given. The council, by speeding up its process as recommended by the Minister, merely crams more and more cases into the pipeline without any extra work being done.
The most worrying aspect is that builders are put under considerable pressure to speed up, and even the most respectable and most responsible of them is forced to cut corners. In addition, there are in South Wales large numbers of "cowboy" builders who flit in and out of the valleys and whose only interest is not in the quality of their work but in extracting as much money as possible. Every week I find cases arising which I never had to deal with before where these "cowboy" builders take part payment—sometimes they even get the full payment —and carry out completely unsatisfactory work. In such a situation not only is the owner-occupier forced to pay extra but there is a considerable waste of public funds.
There is a growing and considerable gap between the date of approval and the date of completion of work and that means that the grant lags behind the ultimate cost. In such cases the council should at least have the discretion to revise the grants to meet genuine increases in the cost of materials and possibly the cost of labour. I would have expected by now that the Government would have published their full intentions concerning changes in improvement grants.
If the deadline is not extended the Secretary of State will have failed in his duty towards the people of Wales. If the local authorities are to act fairly and sensibly they must be able to revise the grants, and the deadline must be extended if the people are to be properly housed. I hope that tonight the Secretary of State


will not simply trot out the number of approvals and say that because the number is high everything is fine. I hope that he will give some reasonable answers.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman: I should like to draw attention to the absence of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards). Normally I would not concern myself with the hon. Member's absences, but as a result of his political mischief just before Christmas I have been compelled to enter into a great deal of correspondence. I wonder about his absence tonight. It is certainly not because he is considering a request from my hon. Friend's for assistance with a problem in their constituencies, as was the case before Christmas.
The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) for initiating the debate today. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John), Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), and Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), my hon. Friend has clearly stated the problems which are to be found in South Wales. One theme has run clearly through the debate—the necessity for extending the deadline on these grants. If that is not done, considerable hardship will befall the people of South Wales.
I should like to underline one iniquitous feature of this operation. My hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd and Rhondda, West have referred to the practice of some, though not all, builders. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West called them "cowboys". I have to be a little more blunt. I call them crooks. These people are battening on to the elderly and the widows, taking money for work which they fail to complete and which they never intend to complete. These "cowboys" ignore the efforts of Members of Parliament, local councillors, council officials and others who try to get assistance to help those who are being rooked and cheated. I hope that the Secretary of State listened carefully to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd for some form of licensing of those engaged in improvement work. I hope also that he will ensure that improvements continue. I hope that he will persuade his right hon. Friends to bring forward a

measure which will extend the period in which the grants are available.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The Secretary of State has had a bad hour. If he has not had a bad time he must be more unfeeling than I thought he was. No one could listen to my hon. Friends without realising that we are debating a deep human problem.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State—whose ill health I deplore and to whom I wish a speedy recovery—are lucky. They never have to sit in a surgery in Wales, they never have to face the sort of people we have been talking about, they never have to listen to the harrowing tales of good hardworking people who are asking only for a home of their own.
If speculation proves to be true, we are in the dying days of this Parliament. The mass media, at least, seem to believe that we are on the edge of a decision. The Prime Minister cannot keep playing with the country much longer. He must say that the election will be in the spring, or soldier on. If we are on the verge of an election, this is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last chance to do something about the improvement grants about which my hon. Friends have spoken so effectively.
I have never believed that the Secretary of State is an unfeeling man. I have doubted his judgment, and experiance has proved how right I have been, but I have never doubted that his instincts are all right. It is to his feeling that I appeal. He is our mouthpiece in the Cabinet. There is no one else from Wales who can do this job. It is his job to see that the dateline for improvement grants is extended and to see that the 75 per cent. grant is kept.
It is not without significance that we have not heard a single appeal from the Government benches in support of the case made by my hon. Friends. I hope that the people in Pembrokeshire will get the message loud and clear that their hon. Member does not seem worried about improvement grants in that part of the world. He has not even looked into the Chamber. If he has, it was through a telescope. As for the Liberals, there is no one here from Montgomeryshire. The Welsh people have a right to know who are concerned about this issue. We


had for a fleeting moment the presence of the new knight from Barry, but even the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) lost interest after a moment or two. I share the universal pleasure at the hon. Gentleman's honour, but I do not want to say anything more on that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has for a long time been responsible for campaigning on this question. He has been supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands), Pontypridd (Mr. John), Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) and Neath (Mr. Coleman), who have participated in the debate. So far we have had nothing but stalling from the Government.
I know that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us in a moment how the figures for improvement grants have escalated, but the escalation started before the right hon. Gentleman took up his post. Our memory goes back just over three years, and so does the memory of any good Welshman. Why have the figures escalated? It is because the Welsh people are amongst the most house proud people in the world.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West was talking about houses in the Rhondda without bathrooms, indoor toilets or hot and cold water, I thought of my own home in Tonypandy. I grew up in such a house. It was a good house. But in those days people were content to be without those amenities that today are regarded as normal. Existing good houses ought to be brought up to modern standards. It is to the credit of our people in Wales that they have taken advantage of the house improvement scheme in such large numbers.
But we all know that the people of Canton, in Cardiff, as well as Riverside and parts of Llandaff, will be unable to get the improvement work completed by next June. I hope that besides giving us a list of figures relating to the past, the Secretary of State will assure us about the future.
My hon Friends have appealed also—this is a major point—for flexibility in the grants. It is a patchy picture that the Principality presents. When I think of Llandaff, where most people are well

housed compared with parts of Riverside and Canton, I see the inequality of it all. If politics means anything, it means that we are concerned with the quality of life of our people.
It is unfair for the Government to stick to the date and the figure they have given. We expect the Secretary of State, in the eleventh hour of this Government, to do the decent thing and extend the date. If he does not, he will be leaving the privilege for us, and we shall not be slow to take the opportunity.

8.29 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) suggested that I have had a bad hour listening to the debate. I join issue with him on that. I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate, and I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) for having introduced the subject, which is very important to us in Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman very courteously, as I would expect, said how much he deplored the ill-health of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am happy to say that the indisposition from which my hon. Friend is suffering is purely temporary. I welcome the fact that it has given me the opportunity to take his place tonight.
I have another debate later, probably in the early hours of the morning, on housing in Wales. I look forward to the opportunity in that debate to reply to some of the points made in speeches in the present debate. I do not think that it would be right for me to enlarge this debate to the extent to which it could be enlarged.
It is true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not at present have to sit in a surgery in Wales, but he knows that I sat in surgeries in Wales and listened to complaints about the housing situation there between 1945 and 1951. I sat in a surgery in Wales when the Labour Government were returned in 1964 and inherited a very good housing situation. When I came into office in 1970 I found that local authority housing and the plans for local authority housing were declining. I am glad to say that approvals on tender by the Welsh Office


for 1973 are twice as high as last year and higher than at any time since 1969.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned private housing in Wales. When I took office in 1970 the figures for private housing were becoming alarming. There was a decline, and many of the builders referred to in this debate were suffering bankruptcy.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the average number of houses built during the period in office of the previous Labour Government was 19,000 a year, the highest ever since a public house-building programme began, and 40 per cent. higher than the average under the previous Tory administration?

Mr. Peter Thomas: We have had these discussions before. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that an incoming Government inherit the programme initiated several years before by their predecessors. His Government inherited a good, rising housing programme, and failed to carry out the programme in their manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that I inherited a declining programme.
It is by the introduction of measures such as we have been discussing, including the increase in house improvement, that we have been able to give the people of Wales their present housing situation.
I shall refer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East. We are all anxious that we should exploit the encouraging climate which has developed in Wales as a result of house improvement policies initiated, I agree, by the Government of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West in the 1969 Act and improved, as I have no doubt all hon. Members will accept, by the present Government in 1971. We must ensure that we preserve as many of the older houses as we can. We have always regarded house improvement as worthy of the highest priority. That is why we were determined to build upon the initial impetus which was achieved, I accept, by the Housing Act 1969. That is what we did in 1971.
The 1971 Act, which in effect we are now discussing, was designed to give an added boost to the assisted areas. The 75 per cent. was to be found just in the

assisted areas. It was never intended, and it was never suggested, that it should be for an unlimited time. We set a time limit for the 1971 Act because we intended primarily to encourage private owners and local authorities to bring forward quickly extra house improvement work. For that reason we made it a condition, to which reference has been made, that a higher rate of grant would be given if the work was completed within two years from 23rd June 1971.
The results were dramatic. Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned them. It was during 1972 that we recognised that the pressure to get work done by June 1973 had overloaded the local authority administration and, in some areas, the capacity of the building industry. Before this debate I read the Adjournment debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on that subject. It was for those reasons that we decided to introduce fresh legislation to extend the Act for one year to 23rd June 1974.

Mr. McBride: Mr. McBride rose——

Mr. Peter Thomas: In so doing we emphasised repeatedly that it was a once-and-for-all-extension.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)  rose——

Mr. Peter Thomas: Ministers stressed the need for all concerned to press ahead as quickly as possible to derive the maximum advantage from the increased grants. Hon. Members will remember that a circular was issued at the time to all local authorities which made it clear that it was a once-and-for-all extension.

Mr. Morgan: I do not in any way deny that it was made clear at the time that the higher grant in the assisted areas would be for a limited period. Was it envisaged by the Government at that time that there would be such an acute housing shortage as now exists in Wales? When the Government set that time limit did they foresee that in 1973 there would be fewer houses built in the public sector than in any year since 1946? If they did not foresee those matters, does not that situation demand that the Government should reopen the question of that time limit which was imposed in 1972?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I think that the housing situation was well appreciated. It was not considered that the extension of the Act, which referred only to assisted areas, was the answer. It was considered necessary to have a housing policy to meet the real needs to which reference has been made. It was our intention that the 1971 Act should induce a short, sharp boost in house improvement capacity. That was successfully achieved. Labour Members have referred in glowing terms to the success of the Act. Indeed, if it were not successful they would not be asking for it to be continued.

Mr. McBride: I listened with interest to what the Secretary of State said about the Housing Act, passed in 1971 when there was overheating in the building industry. No doubt he will have read the article in the Local Government Chronicle which said that builders are not now rushing to tender for local authority houses. If the Government really want to deal with the problem and achieve success, why do they not remove the very things that debar success?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but there was no overheating in the building industry in 1971 when the Act was passed. Indeed, the Act was passed to meet the problem, and the idea was to give a boost to economic activity in the assisted areas.
I mentioned that the legislation had been a success. The current level of improvement activity in Wales has never been equalled. The hon. Member for Swansea, East asked me for some figures and said something about my figures being inaccurate.

Mr. McBride: No, I did not.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Perhaps I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he may be interested in having those figures. Up to 1970 improvement grants awarded in Wales held steady at 7,000 to 8,000 a year. In 1972 the figure rose to 28,000, four times that number. Although I have not the final figures available, it is almost certain that in 1973 the number of improvement grants awarded will exceed 30,000. Of the 7,000 improvement grants awarded in Swansea since 1967, nearly 5,500 have occurred since 1971.

The figure for Wales in the last three years for improvement grants amounts to nearly 70,000. This represents 70,000 houses rescued from their descent into unfitness, and means 70,000 families with higher standards of living. This is a policy which has been highly satisfactory and very encouraging.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil will say "Why not carry on with it?"

Mr. Rowlands: Why not?

Mr. Peter Thomas: And the hon. Member for Swansea, East will ask "Why not bring in another housing amendment Act?" Time and again we have made it clear that we cannot always work against deadlines. We must move on to a more coherent, long-term policy in respect of areas of older housing. This is what we propose to do. The Government are determined to tackle the problem that remains, but we are convinced that the right approach lies in being more selective than we have been in the past.
Our proposals have been published in a White Paper which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said we have used as a fig leaf ; the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) also tried to pour scorn on the White Paper. But that White Paper describes a new range of measures designed to tackle the housing problems in those areas where living conditions are worst and to change the improvement grant system to benefit those whose needs are greatest. This surely should have the approval of those Welsh Labour Members who are present. [Interruption.] Reference was made to one of my Conservative colleagues being absent from this debate. I have a list of the majority of Welsh Labour Members who are absent from this debate.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) referred to the conditions in his area which he said were intolerable. The same sort of thing was said by the hon. Members for Rhondda, West, and Merthyr Tydvil. They all selected their own areas as being areas of great need, instead of referring to the 1971 Housing Act which, by reason of the changes made in assisted areas, applies to the whole of Wales. Throughout Wales one now thinks in terms of selecting areas of greatest need. The measures which were described in the White Paper centre upon a new concept of housing action areas,


and, as hon. Gentlemen have mentioned, general improvement areas with preferential rates of grant.

Mr. Rowlands: Mr. Rowlands rose——

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am happy to give way for I appreciate that the hon. Member disagrees with this method, as he has already stated in the House, but in formulating these proposals the Government have had the advantage of consultation with local authority associations and other bodies, and, in particular, we have taken note of the views expressed in the Tenth Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure, of which the hon. Member is a distinguished member.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, West said that we must not in Wales just duplicate everything that happens in England, but if one looks at the White Paper one can see that that is not our intention and one can see that Wales has certain special problems which are recognised by the Government and mentioned by the Government. We are determined that these, with those identified in other parts of the United Kingdom, will be effectively dealt with by the proposed measures. We recognise that the problems arise particularly in those areas of Wales which are not subject to the same kind of concentrated housing stress characteristic of the worst areas of England but which are, nevertheless, for social and economic reasons, in need of special treatment to maintain them as living communities, as hon. Members have been urging they should be.

Mr. Rowlands: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He is on an important, practical point of concern to all of us, but is he suggesting that under the White Paper a local authority should define all its area as a housing action area or just part of it? That is one of the issues on which the all-party Committee quarrelled with the Government.

Mr. Peter Thomas: A Government Bill will be published very shortly—it will be laid before the House shortly.

Mr. George Thomas: Really?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot understand why right hon. and hon. Members keep talking about an election.

Mr. George Thomas: Someone ought to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I can only say that their anticipation of one has enlivened this debate, because we have probably heard from the hon. Member for Rhondda, West the first speech of an election.
It is the Government's belief that it is far more sensible to concentrate resources on those areas of special need than to apply them indiscriminately and less effectively over much wider areas, and legislation embodying the Government's proposals will be introduced shortly. It is clear that I, in this debate, am not able to anticipate that legislation.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH SHIPPING SERVICES

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In the first place let me express my pleasure at seeing the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) back again on the Government front Bench as a Minister. I wish him well in taking up the responsibilities which he laid down some time ago.
My remarks will be addressed in the main to shipping services affecting my constituency, the Western Isles, but I am not unmindful that the Inner Hebrides, Arran, the Shetlands and other islands have suffered from problems similar to those from which we in the Western Isles have suffered over a long period, indeed over generations, because of the shipping services. The shipping services to these islands have been notoriously costly and deficient and thus an impediment to progress.
The islands have been plagued by exorbitant freight charges, by too infrequent sailings and schedules arranged in a vacuum. After sea crossings the shipping company has disregarded the ability of passengers to find their way home from the port of discharge. The whole service has been and still is in a state of shambles. Some have said that it would have taken a computer to make such a mess as exists today in the islands shipping services.
Recently there has been some improvement. The roll-on, roll-off ferries are excellent in principle. They have been


welcomed and there has been an increase in traffic. On the Stornaway-Ullapool run, however, the "Clansman" has been a source of trouble and anger on numerous occasions.
We understand that in the Western Isles weather conditions prohibit the sailing of vessels on many occasions. We realise that better than most people. But all the sailings which the "Clansman" failed to make were not due to the prevailing weather conditions. Making every allowance for the weather, we have had tremendous inconveniences and costs arising from trouble with this vessel. What is so alarming is that the shipping company which operates so many services on the West Coast does not have a standby vessel to throw into the breach.
However, we welcome the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland to place an order for a new custom-built vessel. There are some points about the new ship to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. I wish that he and his colleagues would give serious thought to these points and make the appropriate decisions.
First, the speed of the proposed vessel has been announced as 15·8 knots. I agree that that speed is an improvement on that of the existing vessel, but it is insufficient for the amount of traffic on the route. Ships have been sailing to the Channel Isles for decades with speeds greatly in excess of that proposed for the new ship. I wish to impress on the Minister at this stage the necessity for seeing that the engines of the vessel will produce a speed in excess of that proposed.
Secondly, it has been stated that the vessel will not have stabilisers. In view of the nature of the seas on that crossing—much of the seas being taken on the beam of the vessel—local authorities and seamen in the area regard it as essential for the comfort and safety of travellers that the vessel should be fitted with stabilisers. I hope that the Scottish Office will ensure that this equipment is provided. Thirdly, I wish to serve notice on the Minister that the greater carrying capacity of the ship will not be accepted by us as justifying any restriction on the present two trips across the Minch.
I turn to the Lochmaddy—Uig route. People in that area have been complaining—their complaint is fully justified—that they want more frequent and direct services from Lochmaddy to Skye. I hope that the representation made by the district council in the area will receive the attention it deserves.
The whole of Barra has suffered severely recently from the lack of a cargo vessel to make the scheduled trips. When the service was restricted by MacBrayne's, they promised that the cargo vessel would visit the islands, including the port of Castlebay every 10 days. They have fallen sadly behind in this promise. This has seriously inconvenienced the islanders, causing lack of foodstuffs, fuel and so on. Foodstuffs have certainly been taken from Oban, but they have been carried by the passenger vessel, which has resulted in greately increased costs, which will be passed on to the islanders.
MacBrayne's have now chartered a vessel to make up the backlog, but they did this only after the situation had been given considerable publicity on the radio and in the newspapers. As an example of what this interruption to the service means, I can quote a man who ordered 25 tons of hay for his cattle as far back as last October. By about 8th January, only eight tons had been delivered, which means that the cost of every ton after that will be increased by £15·50. These people have problems in plenty without the shipping company adding to them.
Another problem faces the people of Vatersay, a small island south of Barra. The population is less than 100, but it is a thriving island, in spite of the lack of facilities to connect it with the neighbouring island of Barra. For 40 years the people have been pressing for an additional 40 feet to be added to the landing stage and they have been unable to impress on the Inverness County Council and the Scottish Office the necessity for this development.
They have failed to get any sympathy or any action in connection with their problem. It is a responsibility of the county council and the Scottish Office combined. Writers are very fanciful about the background noise of the Hebrides, but the greatest background noise in that area is the sound of Inverness County Council dragging its feet. I hope that the Scottish


Office will give full support for these jetties in Vatersay and Barra and for the facilities which are needed for the sea truck which is necessary if these people are to have communication with their next-door neighbours.
There are islands on the west coast of Norway with communications as bad as and problems more intractable than the Scottish islands, and the Norwegian Government deal with the problem far more effectively than any British Government have ever dealt with ours. We should accept that these routes are highways, something for which the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the local authorities, MPs and individuals have pressed for a long time. The Government should accept this principle for these islands. They pick up the debts of London Transport regularly and we have as much right to have our economy assured by proper transport services as has any other part of the country.
The Scottish Transport Group should pay more attention to ensuring the good will of the people in the area. We have heard of monopolies, but most monopolies pay some attention to securing public good will. One would think that the response of the Scottish Transport group was to run up a signal, "Stand by to repel boarders" whenever it saw any passengers or an improvement in traffic in the offing. The principle that the sea routes are part of the highways system should be accepted and the group should be told by the Scottish Office to have some regard for the needs of the people in the area.
We in the Outer Isles are making a reasonable contribution to the economy of the country. The British Government must regard every area of the United Kingdom as a part of the country that should have a fair chance of making its contribution. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind these points and see that the Scottish Office makes the necessary decisions.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I wish to deal with four main topics concerned with the shipping services to Shetland and Orkney. Before doing so I stress that for islanders the shipping routes are the main roads and they should be treated as such. Shipping routes are as much entitled to a share

of public funds as are roads. Today we from the north and west of Scotland no longer alone beg subsidies from parts of the country which are compelled to provide them. On the contrary, London is heavily subsidised—particularly London Transport—and we are making a contribution in foodstuffs, fishing, agriculture, tweed and knitwear. Now we are making a contribution in oil which is of growing—and will ultimately be of decisive—importance to the British economy.
My first main topic concerns freight charges and passenger fares. These have always been the most severe handicap under which the islands suffer. They are today high. Under the impact of inflation they are only too likely to get higher. The Government need to look again at the whole system by which a very small amount of assistance has been given to holding down these charges. In Orkney and Shetland we have suffered year after year a 10 per cent. or larger increase—a greater increase than has been allowed under the various prices and incomes policies and a greater increase than other people have had to bear. Against this we have had endless trouble to get such assistance as has been available. The whole subject of freight charges and passenger fares will have to be reexamined.
Secondly, I want to mention the situation of certain islands in my constituency which until recently have been served by the "Earl of Zetland". The "Earl of Zetland" is being replaced by a series of overland ferries as far as Unst, Yell and, eventually, Whalsey and Fetlar. It is important that islands such as Skerries should have adequate transport services and that as the take-over proceeds freight charges and fares should not be raised. The two should be dovetailed together ; otherwise communities will be left without adequate transport.
My third topic relates to Orkney. We are in the process of starting a roll-on/ roll-off service between Scrabster and Stromness, but there is a danger that this will be held up by lack of steel. There is also a danger that certain services essential to the oil industry will be held up by lack of steel. The Government should give urgent consideration to this matter. If we have to import steel, which may be the solution, it will be


extremely expensive. I agree that the Norwegians not only appear to be able to deal more effectively with their transport problems but have been able to obtain steel to build up the services to oil rigs at a rate and at prices which this country is in danger of not being able to match. The point I want to stress is the need for steel for the harbour facilities, including cranes, particularly in Stromness, if the roll-on, roll-off service is to come into service on time.
My last point has to do with the extremely valuable service which has been started between John o' Groats and South Ronaldsay. This enables day tourists and others who have business to cross from Caithness to Orkney and return the same evening if they wish. It is enormously popular and carries a tremendous weight of passengers.
Unfortunately, the floating wooden jetty from which it operates at John o' Groats was sunk in slightly regrettable circumstances. I understand that the trouble arose from the high spirits of a Caithness darts club. There must be something about darts which brings out that streak of wildness in the Caithness men with which we are all familiar. Apparently, they danced up and down upon the thing and sank it. In any case it was only a temporary jetty. It is obviously of importance to the harbour of John o' Groats that permanent improvements should be carried out.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has raised this matter several times and so have I. At present the Scottish Development Department has felt that there is some difficulty, but the Highlands and Islands Development Board is favourably disposed towards it. It has been suggested by Mr. George Thomson that if the British Government will support it, it is the type of project for which the EEC might make some funds available. The Government ought to recognise this extremely valuable service, and if a request is put up to them, as I believe it will be by the appropriate authorities, should support it in Brussels. I also hope that the Scottish Development Department will look at it again and that the efforts of the HIDB will be encouraged.
There is no more important part of the economic life of the islands than the transport services. I will not tonight go into the need for speed, which is as great in Orkney and Shetland as it is in the Hebrides. I will not go into the question of what type of vessel there should be and the frequency of service, both of which have from time to time caused concern, and still cause great concern, particularly in Shetland.
These four points—freight, the absolute necessity of keeping the services to all islands, the supply of steel and the service across the Pentland Firth—I draw to the attention of the Government in the hope that if they are spared, which is by no means certain, they will give them their earnest consideration.

9.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I am grateful to hon. Members for what they have said in this debate. I can assure them that, although I probably have a great deal to learn in a job which I have been allocated for only about a week, by raising this matter and forcing me to study it at this early stage they will ensure that it is something I shall not forget. Every Scottish Member is fully aware that the shipping services in the islands are crucial to the development of these islands.
We sometimes forget the services which the islands provide for their industries and the service which they give to the rest of the country. I can assure the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that in future discussions I shall bear in mind what they said and take careful note of the points made.
There are a number of detailed points which have been raised. I was glad that the hon. Member for Western Isles gave a general welcome to the announcement by my right hon. Friend in the House on 18th April—which happens to be my birthday—dealing with the policy for improving and modernising the shipping services in all the Scottish islands. The policy introduced new arrangements to provide for the improvement of services and, under these arrangements, shipping companies, harbour and local authorities,


with Government financial help where appropriate, are developing and improving their services. The hon. Member appreciated that carrying capacity has been greatly increased. Further increases are on the way.
On 11th December we debated the new financial arrangements to assist services to those islands which in general are too small or too remote or too sparsely populated to enable a service to pay its own way. It is fair to say that these new arrangements received a favourable reception. I am referring to David MacBrayne Ltd. The arrangements to support these services were welcomed.
In general the policy of encouraging the roll-on, roll-off vehicle ferries was welcomed, and it is worth recording how the passenger and traffic carried by the services operated by the shipping subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group have increased since being taken over in 1969. Last year they carried 700,000 cars, which represented an increase of about 100 per cent. over 1969. Last year they also carried 85,000 commercial vehicles, which represented a 60 per cent. increase over 1969 and a good deal more than that in terms of carrying capacity because the vehicles themselves tended to be larger.
The hon. Gentleman referred to passenger services about which he is concerned. In 1973 the number of passengers carried on all the sea services to the Western Isles was 1·8 million, which was a 35 per cent. increase on 1969. There has also been a substantial increase in the figures in other respects. But there has been quite a large increase in the passengers carried.
Those are the increases in traffic since 1969. It may also interest hon. Members to know the scale of expenditure on terminal facilities since the statement of April 1972. The hon. Member for Western Isles rightly referred to their importance. Already expenditure of £1·2 million has been incurred, with almost £900.000 met from Government grants and loans. The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of grants and loans, and it is fair to point out that of the spending of more than £1 million the Government have contributed £900,000 directly in cash.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his return to the Treasury Bench? Before he leaves the capacity of the vessels, will he bear in mind that although the capacity of each vessel has been increased it is to be hoped that the frequency of services will not be reduced as a result. Frequency is just as important as capacity.

Mr. Taylor: I accept that entirely. I accept that the scheduling has not been altogether ideal. I shall say a little more about that later.
I was saying that out of £1·2 million spent, £900,000 has come from the Government. Commitments already entered into amount to almost £2·7 million of Government assistance for projects which will cost about £3 million in total. The terminals concerned include those for the Ullapool-Stornoway service, the Scrabster-Stromness service and those at Craignure and Lochboisdale.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about the Ullapool-Stornoway service. He will recall that the Stornoway service was operated formerly by another vessel, the "Loch Seaforth", which served the islands well in its day but which was limited to one trip per day and had a cargo capacity of only 56 tons. In addition there was the weekly cargo ship with a capacity of 600 tons.
Now we have the "Clansman". I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman referred to the "Clansman" as being a source of great trouble. She has a capacity of 250 tons, and she is scheduled to cross twice per day. I say that advisedly because, as the hon. Gentleman said, under adverse weather conditions the "Clansman" has missed a number of crossings. I have checked on this because I knew that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about it and had written to my Department about it a number of times. I find that since she began sailing on 2nd July the total number of crossings that she has missed has been about 40, of which 20 were in the week beginning 30th July when the vessel was out of action because of generator trouble. Since then stress of weather has been the cause of virtually all the missed crossings, and there is no doubt that the weather has been exceptionally severe, especially recently.
The increase in carrying capacity in terms of both cargo and vehicles has been enormous, from 950 tons per week to between 2,500 and 3,000 tons per week. There has also been a great gain in convenience with a twice-daily service in place of the once-daily plus the once-weekly service.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Regarding the missed crossings, while I agree that the weather has been deplorable recently, does the hon. Gentleman realise that people in the area compare the missed crossings with the missed crossings of the "Seaforth", which, over 22 years, could be counted on the fingers of one hand?

Mr. Taylor: Yes. That is a fair point. However, with the introduction of the improved new vessel, which was giving splendid service to the islands, we should compare the 40 missed crossings with the total of 670, which were far more than would have been done by the previous vessel. I have already mentioned that half this total of missed crossings related to a mechanical breakdown and the others to exceptionally severe weather. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that he will accept that it is our hope that these failures will not recur in future. I am sure that there will be a great improvement. I shall be watching the position carefully in view of what the hon. Gentleman said.
The traffic that has been attracted by the new service has been so great that my right hon. Friend announced on 12th December that we would now be justified in replacing the "Clansman" by a faster and larger ship of 400 tons capacity and with a higher expected speed.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not happy about the speed. I understand that the "Clansman" works to a speed of 14·5 knots. The new vessel will work to a speed of 15·8 knots, which is certainly an improvement and should make the schedules easier to work to. I understand that 15·8 knots is considered by the operators as an adequate speed for the service. I will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said on this matter and about stabilisers. Although I spent five years working in the shipyards on the Clyde before entering the House, I know little about stabilisers. I am not sure about the position of this vessel, but I will follow up that point

and see whether anything requires to be done.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Skye-Lochmaddy service. This was a daily service, except Sunday, sailing from Uig to Lochmaddy and the ship took about two hours to make the crossing. I appreciate that there have been complaints. I have been assured that the service will be kept under review. The Scottish Transport Group has not yet reached a decision about the best pattern here, but I am sure that it will carefully consider what the hon. Gentleman said on this matter.
I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman said about Barra, which has been having a rough time recently. There have been serious difficulties in maintaining the service to Barra with a number of sailings missed in recent months. The main reason has been the stress of weather. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been problems with the docks at Glasgow during the last two months. Obviously, we will keep this situation under review, and we hope that it will improve.
Arising from these problems—the failure of certain services to keep to schedules and the situation at Barra—the hon. Gentleman raised the important question of standby vessels. I accept that if we had an adequate supply of standby vessels many of these problems would be easier to cope with. During the summer, mainly because of shipyard delays, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware, and large increases in traffic, the STG suffered from a shortage of suitable vessels of the proper capacity for the services operated. This situation was worsened a great deal by the unfortunate loss of the "Loch Seaforth" and various mishaps and breakdowns throughout the fleet which were beyond the control of the group.
The STG has now ordered one general purpose vehicle ferry and two car ferries for the Clyde which will release much needed tonnage for other areas of operation. The first of these Clyde ferries was launched on 27th November and should be in operation early next year.
The second is expected to enter service at Easter, releasing for use elsewhere a large roll-on, roll-off vehicle ferry, the "Glen Sannox", on which I have sailed on a number of occasions. The general purpose vessel is expected to go into


service quite shortly on the Islay route. These are in addition to the new vessel for Stornoway. I accept that because of an increase in business there was a serious shortage of vessels, when problems arose, but the situation should be easier in future, and additional vessels should be available. I hope that that will be of some assistance.
The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) also raised the principle of regarding sea lanes as roads. This is the Norwegian principle, and we have heard a great deal about it. The matter was raised and enunciated by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and I think we all looked with a great deal of interest at what was said when Professor Gaskin of Aberdeen was invited to examine the effects of freight costs on the islands. I think it is within the general knowledge of hon. Members that Professor Gaskin found that freight costs on the main routes were not the real problem, and that there was a separate way of looking at this. It is an interesting concept, but Professor Gaskin said that in his view freight costs themselves were not the problem. It is always interesting to hear the point raised but, in fairness, it is right to say that the matter was considered seriously by Professor Gaskin following the invitation to do so from the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a question about Vatersay. I do not have the full answer, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is aware that parties other than the Scottish Transport Group and the Scottish Office are involved in such matters and are concerned about the development of these services. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said, and I again apologise for not having the full information on the matter.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the important question of freight charges. We are all aware that these charges are of great significance and that a substantial increase in them can have a severe impact on the islands. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been' faced with inflation for a considerable time. An examination of the way in which the charges have moved would show that they have not gone up

every year, as was alleged, or at a pace faster than charges for other goods and services. Obviously, whenever increases in freight charges are proposed we look at them carefully, but it is fair to say that they have not moved at a faster rate than charges for other services.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of a service between John o' Groat's and St. Margaret's Hope and the need for pier facilities at the former. The Government's policy is to concentrate their support so as to ensure adequate all-the-year-round services to all the islands and island groups. Large sums are being invested to provide a modern roll-through service between Scrabster and Stromness across the Pentland Firth. The "Pentalina" is a summer tourist service, and a good one in that limited context. It is on these grounds, and in relation to use for fishing boats, that the John o' Groat's scheme has a claim for support. I cannot accept that it should be supported from funds available for the major services, but it is something that I should like to consider further, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also raised the question of services to the Outer Islands. The Government's policy is to support the local authorities in controlling and supporting the services between the central island of the island groups and the outlying islands, so that these services are determined locally with appropriate central financial support. I take careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have stated the Government's general policy, and we shall continue with it.
I should not like to give the impression—and I am sure this will be clear from what I have said—that I have mastered this subject. I am just beginning to learn some of the problems. I assure both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman that I shall look carefully at the matter, because I appreciate from what they said, and from my own experience as a Scottish Member, that this service is vital to the Scottish islands. On the other hand, I could not accept entirely the view of the hon. Member for the Western Isles that the service is a shambles. There have been major problems in the past, but I hope that what I have said tonight will at least give the


impression—and I believe the true impression—that we are making progress in this service.
There are new vessels coming into operation, new facilities and better services. We have a long way to go, but I believe that we are going in the right direction. I assure both hon. Members that in planning our future policy the Secretary of State and I will bear very much in mind all that they said tonight.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING RESOURCES

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: In Class VIII, Vote 1, the sum required on account for housing in England is £250 million, and in Vote 7, for Central Administration (Department of the Environment) a further £15 million is required.
The Department of the Environment is a vast Department but well worth the creation, and it has made great progress in many areas, though I feel that sometimes we could do with a few more Under-Secretary's of the calibre of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is to answer this debate—that is not flattery ; I mean it—because it is such a vast Department. My hon. Friend would then be able to give even more attention to the matter which I want to raise tonight, and, for that matter, to a number of other things on which he has had to answer me at the Dispatch Box.
It is a pity that we no longer have a Minister of Works. Many of the things with which a Minister of Works, with the proper leisure and a Parliamentary Secretary of his own, used to deal now have to be dealt with in a vast Department. Sometimes they get a little lost. A long time ago I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister of Works. I thought that it was a most interesting job, but it was abolished. That has been one's fate throughout life.
I return to the central point—for housing in England a sum of £250 million. Despite this enormous expenditure we have seen a decline over the years in privately-owned rented accommodation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know that I have asked a number of Questions on this subject, some of which

he has had the good fortune to answer. Only this Tuesday I asked him
the principal reasons for the decline in the total of privately owned rented accommodation since 1945 ; and if he will take steps to reverse this trend.
My hon. Friend replied—I am paraphrasing him a little—
there seems little doubt that the various restrictions imposed on landlords"—
my hon. Friend might also have included here the owner-occupier, who may technically be a landlord if he lets part of his house, but is very different from the image of a landlord, which is not a very happy image, perhaps, in some places—
for the protection of tenants have made a substantial contribution"—
that is, towards the steady decline. My hon. Friend went on to direct me to the Government's proposals for tackling the resulting shortage of dwellings to let. These were set out in paragraphs 37–42 of the White Paper "Widening The Choice: The Next Steps in Housing" (Cmnd. 5280, 1973). My hon. Friend said that they were to be
implemented in the Housing and Planning Bill to be introduced within the next few weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 64.]
It may be that "the next few weeks" will have to be stretched a little. However, I am sure that we can return to that Bill before too long.
I read the whole of the White Paper and not just the paragraphs to which I was directed. I discovered within it that
The ultimate aim of housing policy is that everyone should have a decent home with a reasonable choice of owning or renting the sort of home they want.
No one could disagree with that. I also learned that the country was
making progress towards achieving this social aim.
Indeed we are, but on the renting side of it we are experiencing certain difficulties. The Government's aim is to widen the choice, and there is a shortage of good dwellings in many areas. In West Bristol I represent an area in which there is great pressure on the existing stock of housing, though that stock of housing could be better used. That is why the subject that I have chosen to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill is the use of housing resources.
The White Paper goes on:
the proportion built to rent or buy must reflect the needs and wishes of the people in the area and the prices they can afford.
They do not at the present time, and this is not entirely the Government's fault. Extraordinary factors have made the whole situation infinitely more difficult in recent months. There are other remedies which could be applied. The Government have decided, according to the White Paper to take
further steps to meet social needs by widening the choice.
Then we are directed to various suggested solutions. But in the section entitled "Home ownership" the Government say
Most people want to own their own home.
I question whether that is true at the beginning of life. In the end no doubt everyone wants to own a home of his own. At the outset, however, a married couple must be infinitely mobile.
If the man is to make a success in a job he often has to be prepared at a moment's notice to go to the branch in Newcastle, or wherever, and he does not want to be tied to a home which he has bought on an expensive mortgage which because of the state of the market he cannot sell for enough to redeem the mortgage and thus be completely stymied. There may be an element of truth in this sentence but it is not the whole truth.
The Government believes that the demand for new houses will need to be met mainly by private building for sale.
That is a laudable aim but again because of the economic circumstances forces outside the United Kingdom are having a considerable effect. The oil shortage is certainly one of them. What are the Government to do to keep up the impetus of building? The local authorities must reluctantly open the floodgates and build, often at higher densities than people want and the sort of houses most people do not want to live in. The result is most unfortunate.
The White Paper says:
cyclical movements have prevented the house-building industry from operating effectively.
and it refers to the difficulty over building society finance. No one would want to see a repetition of the £50 million arrangement which was produced at a particular moment in order to deal with a particular situation. Although it was

a laudable move in one sense in that it dealt with a problem affecting some people, many others who did not benefit from it must have thought it somewhat unfair. This is the trouble for any Government when they see a difficulty. The heart of the nation bleeds for a particular section which it sees in difficulty, the Government provide public money to help that section and are told by others that they have not been helped. The White Paper says that a greater stability in the flow of mortgage funds would be desirable. There have been consultations with the building societies, but they are not their own masters when economic forces come to bear upon them.
In the section entitled "The Voluntary Housing Movement" we find a paragraph which appears contradictory to an earlier paragraph.
Many people prefer to rent their home or cannot afford to buy it.
Taken with the earlier sentence, that is, if not a contradiction, certainly a qualification. It continues:
They, too, must have adequate choice of decent accommodation.
We echo that. The Government admit:
The private rented sector continues to decline. The Government believes that the trend towards a municipal monopoly of rented accommodation it unhealthy in itself.
But that is what the Government are being driven into at the moment.
The White Paper says:
The Government will continue to support improvement of the quality of private rented dwellings.
That is fine, and let no one be justified in attacking any Government for using public money to improve the quality of homes. If someone makes an incidental profit out of it, and if that profit is not big, that does not matter as long as the quality of the stock of homes and the quantity are improved. Public money is well spent on that. The Government also admit that
the decline in the number of private rented dwellings is unlikely to be reversed.
The White Paper goes on to talk about housing corporations and says that this is not the solution to the problem.
In Chapter 12 the Francis Committee Report says:
The London Boroughs Associations state that 'the system of regulated tenancies has not had the effect of bringing further rented accommodation on to the market.'


Surprise, surprise! That does not surprise some of us who have studied the matter. A succession of controls and restrictions all with the laudable aim of protecting the tenant from exploitation has driven the private house-owner—I will not use the emotive word "landlord"—right out of the picture. No one in his right mind would let an unfurnished part of a house that he lives in under the present restrictive legislation for fear of being stuck with a tenant that he could not get rid of.
I shall refer to a couple of cases given to me in recent weeks, giving only the outline in each case. The House will appreciate that I do not wish to give specific details. These cases are typical of what is happening. One concerns a woman living with a handicapped daughter in a house in which she had some spare space. Because of the uncertain state of the law she did not want to have a regular tenant, so she thought that it would be a good idea to have people on a temporary basis. She was so wrong. A young woman who was nicely dressed, well-spoken and polite told her that she would like to stay three weeks and that she had a student occupation.
The three weeks' rent in advance was all that my constituent got out of that young woman. She was a prostitute. There was no question about it. She was well known to the vice-squad, not only in Bristol but in the neighbouring counties. She stayed at the house on and off, threatening my constituent, for 19 weeks, despite an appeal from my constituent to the police, who told her that they could do nothing. The tenant had security. The woman used £27-worth of electricity, which my constituent had to pay for.
Eventually, the cumbersome process of the courts was taken to its extremity and the tenant went, only to start the performance on some other unsuspecting constituent not far away. That constituent has yet to come to me with the tale, but I know what is going on.
Another of my constituents, with a coronary condition, is stuck in an upstairs flat. Her life is shortened and she will eventually die through having to climb the stairs to her flat, which is over a flat in which a well-paid couple have a protected tenancy at an absurdly low rent, even under present legislation. My long-suffering constituent has been

legally advised that because she cannot provide a minor aspect of self-contained-ness she cannot win in the court against the people who sit downstairs and sap her very life blood.
I am not suggesting to my hon. Friend that we upset the existing arrangements, even though they are unhappy. That would stir up a lot of trouble and would be the wrong way to go about it. But statistics which we have discovered over lengthy parliamentary questioning and other processes of the House show the problems. I found on Monday that two out of five houses in the same road were occupied by widows living alone because they feared that they would be stuck with someone they could never dislodge.
An owner-occupier with spare accommodation who creates a new unit of accommodation which has not previously been let under existing law should not be subject to the existing restrictions. The tenant would have no security of tenure beyond the terms of a lease freely entered into.
If we must have a governess or nanny to safeguard the situation let the apparatus of the rent officer be brought in to see that the initial agreement is fair and reasonable. But let there be no cumbersome court process by which someone who is not prepared to abide by the terms of the lease can stay indefinitely without paying rent, eventually being evicted, but only after immense, if not irreparable, damage to the owner by depriving him of the use of the premises as well as causing him a lot of personal misery.
My hon. Friend has answered Questions about that suggestion on a number of occasions. I detect a glimmer of hope, and just a glimmer is great progress, because the wheels of Government take a little time to move, even with the impetus given by my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend, who has answered a number of debates initiated by me on a wide variety of subjects. As a result of the initiative of my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor, we sorted out the Somerset House problem and the Whitehall problem, and we shall sort out many other problems that my hon. Friend knows about.
I have asked my hon. Friend to estimate the number of houses which are now occupied by single persons or by one


family and which could be subdivided to provide accommodation for an additional family of two or three persons. He has said more than once that there is no material available on which to base such an estimate, and that he doubts whether such a survey would be justified. The answer is to set this whole unused body of accommodation free, to set free those who have surplus accommodation, and see how they get on.
My hon. Friend cannot argue with me when I tell him that I have had an estimate from a most reliable source in London that 100,000 extra homes in London—rented private accommodation units, if I must use the technical jargon—could become available within a very short time if that new freedom were given to owner-occupiers. It can easily be calculated that about 1 million extra homes could be provided in the country at large without much delay.
So far I have not ventured onto a political theme, but I know that my hon. Friend might be tempted to reply "What you suggest is perfectly reasonable. Indeed, it is the solution in the short term to the problem of getting more accommodation on to the market. But there is one stumbling block—the inhibition which many people in public life have against interfering with a situation that has grown up over many years, and the fear that if the Government enacted what you ask for, another Government of a different political complexion might immediately repeal it. People might let others into their home thinking that they retained control of the home and then find that another Government slapped on a control and that they were in the same pickle as the people who had let part of their home before your proposal was enacted."
It would be reasonable to say to our political adversaries "We respect your view about protecting tenants, and we do not on this occasion propose to interfere with what has gone before, although we reckon that many grievous injuries result from it. But surely you cannot disagree with letting an owner-occupier do what he likes with his own home, letting him share it with another person, with proper safeguards." Let us say that to our political adversaries and see whether they accept the challenge. I have heard some of the more extreme Labour Members—

their views on many matters seem extreme to us—say that the owner-occupier must be king of his own castle. I respect the views of those Members. Let us throw out the challenge to them. Let us ask them "Would you frustrate the laudable process of bringing more homes on to the market, when they are so desperately needed?"
I do not suppose that it is necessary for me to give more statistics, but I will quote one of my right hon. Friends in aid, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in an exchange we had on 8th May last year, when I managed at Question Time to make a point about under-occupation. My right hon. Friend said:
My hon. Friend tempts me out of my present responsibilities. When I was Minister of Housing, under-occupation was one of the great factors in the housing position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May 1973 ; Vol. 856, c. 193.]
How right he was, and how still that is a problem.
Earlier this week I put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment a series of Questions—namely, Written Questions 133, 134 and 136. My hon. Friend, instead of answering my Questions separately, answered them all together. He said:
My hon. Friend is always ready to consider measures designed to encourage the supply of more homes, but has, however, no immediate plans for legislation of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 63.]
Perhaps no one outside Parliament would believe that that is immeasurable progress. All that I received on the last occasion was a cold "No." On 15th January my hon. Friend said that there were no immediate plans. That is progress. That is the glimmer of hope for which I was looking. I only hope that my hon. Friend will be able to go a bit further than that. Perhaps more progress will be made. Perhaps the momentum of the whole political system is speeding up. If I could have put off the debate until tomorrow evening perhaps my hon. Friend would have been able to go even further. Perhaps it is another matter to consider what would happen if the debate were to take place next week.
I hope that my hon. Friend will move towards setting free the under-occupied owner-occupier. I do not believe that


anybody in his right mind, with the present state of the law, would let part of his own home unless he had the ability to retain control. Let us at least try. There is a potential which is desperately needed. Let us delay no more. Do not let us be afraid of the threat of control which has been bandied about in previous years. I believe that a measure of agreement could be obtained. Sometimes Governments can say to their opponents "This is a matter about which we have always disagreed. We have had our battles about what has gone before, but this is something new for which we could both get a certain amount of credit".
There is no real shortage of accommodation in many of the areas where there are enormous pressures. The accommodation is available and people in desperate need can see it. There are at this moment young couples walking up and down the streets of Bristol, West knocking on doors and asking "Have you some rooms to let?" Probably they have heard from neighbours that someone has rooms to spare. Indeed, they can tell from the electoral register roughly who lives where. They can also determine the position from their own observations. In the next street they may know of half a dozen houses where they could find a home and where they would be welcome with open arms if only we could change the law.
It has taken quite a long time to get as far as we have. In 17 years in this House I have learned that it takes a long time to achieve anything worth while. I hope that we shall make sufficient progress to take another step forward this evening. Who knows, before long we may go the whole way.

9.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) for raising the important matter of the best use of our housing resources. I know from his numerous Questions, to which he has referred, and from his diligent correspondence, as well as from the extremely able speech which he made last October, that it is a matter about which he has a sustained concern.
The Department is equally interested in any means of increasing the stock of dwellings, both by new construction and by the fuller use of existing accommodation, such as householders contemplating the improvement or subdivision of their homes so that parts can be let. Local authority grants are already available for such purposes under the Housing Act 1969. In some respects they are to be increased by the housing and planning Bill which is to be introduced later this month.
I know that my hon. Friend will be glad to recognise that a householder who proposes to install say, a bath or shower and a lavatory for the use of a tenant of part of his home would now be eligible for a grant of £80, and a householder who plans to convert his house into two dwelling units, one for his own occupation and one for letting, would be eligible for a grant of half the conversion cost or £1,000, whichever is the less.

Mr. Cooke: This is a suitable inducement, but it is not enough. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about this aspect, but the vital matter is that of control of a home once it has been subdivided. I am sure that my hon. Friend will come to the control side of the question.

Mr. Eyre: I was anxious to mention one or two points which would please my hon. Friend as well as to survey some of the more difficult aspects of this matter.
It should also be remembered that for a person who lets furnished—the mode of letting which is probably the most likely to appeal to somebody letting off part of his home—there is already a safeguard against the risk that an unwanted tenant, by obtaining temporary security of tenure from the rent tribunal, might remain in occupation long after the lessor wants him gone. Perhaps this is the greatest deterrent affecting the mind of the would-be landlord. This safeguard provides for the landlord to let on a contract for a fixed term. This applies only to furnished premises, but when a contract is for a fixed term the expiry date is settled. If and when, in the effluxion of time, the contract expires and the tenant refuses to leave, the landlord is entitled to apply to the court for an order for possession.

Mr. Cooke: What my hon. Friend says is most useful, but he cannot put his hand on his heart and say that the present administration have never flirted with the idea of controlling furnished premises. There have been pressures on them to do so and there have been severe threats from the Labour benches that this area would be controlled by them, but I think he would agree that this is not the whole answer.

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend quite fairly referred to suggestions which have been made by the Labour Party about furnished tenancies and those proposals would have their effect on security of tenure. Ministers at the Government Dispatch Box have often explained the considerable practical difficulties that would arise if that kind of change in the law were brought about. The Government fear that it would result in the eviction of a large number of tenants in furnished houses and the loss of a considerable amount of accommodation. This is entirely contrary to the argument pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West who wishes to increase in some way the supply of accommodation.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of under-occupied houses. I have already said that it is not known how many owner-occupied houses are both under-occupied and suitable for letting off, with or without physical sub-division, of a part. From the 1971 census it is possible to estimate that about 40 per cent. of the owner-occupied properties, amounting to 3,320,000 houses, have in occupation fewer than one person to two rooms. But that does not fully answer my hon. Friend's question because he wishes to know the exact number of owner-occupied houses which are under-occupied and which are suitable for letting off. This information could be secured only by means of a special survey. I tried to indicate this in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend.
Not only that, still less is it possible to estimate how many under-occupying owner-occupiers are unwilling to let under the law as it now stands but might be willing to let if the relevant legislation were altered on the lines my hon. Friend suggested tonight. Even to assess people's views on that matter a further survey by questionnaire would be needed. It so far

has not appeared to be the case that the cost of undertaking such studies would be justifiable.
It is recognised by those who are experienced in these matters that the restrictions which the Rent Acts impose on landlords for the benefit of tenants have probably contributed substantially to the loss of privately rented dwellings.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend said "probably". If it is not probably the case, to what else is it due?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend will have noticed from figures which I have supplied to him that there has been this steady lessening over the years in the number of privately rented houses available, but there has also been a growth in the number of houses owner-occupied, and in part tenants of those private houses have wished to promote themselves to a form of ownership of the houses and that is a psychological factor.

Mr. Cooke: The increase of one has doubled the decline of the other.

Mr. Eyre: It has indeed. I am saying that I agree with my hon. Friend that the restrictions which the Rent Acts impose have been a factor in the steady decline in the number of rented properties available, and possibly, therefore, the easing of some of these restrictions in the Rent Acts, for new lettings of part of the lessor's own home, the landlord's home, might encourage lettings of parts of their homes by some owner-occupiers who at present do not occupy them fully.
The restrictions in the Rent Acts, however, were imposed for the protection of tenants in a situation in which the shortage of dwellings to let makes it difficult for a tenant to find alternative accommodation. In many parts of the country this shortage still exists and is often acute. There can be no question of depriving sitting tenants of the protections they now enjoy, and I know my hon. Friend has not suggested that for a moment, but even the creation of a new form of tenancy for the future—this new letting of part of the landlord's own home which would not be subject to these restrictions—would be a matter for very careful consideration. That is because first of all the restriction on eviction without a court order for possession is an obligation


so fundamental to the protection of tenants that it is doubtful whether its elimination could be contemplated in any circumstances.
I was sorry to hear of the two sad cases to which my hon. Friend referred, and I accept that there are serious difficulties in certain landlord and tenant relationships. Certainly the reduction in the statutory protection for tenants in unfurnished lettings of any kind—I am concentrating my remarks on my hon. Friend's proposals for new lettings of part of an owner-occupied house—would be a serious matter.
The matter is more serious than where furnished lettings are concerned. I ask my hon. Friend to think about this in circumstances of housing in areas of serious shortage. Alternative furnished lettings are less difficult to find than unfurnished lettings, so that the position of the tenant of furnished premises who has to leave is probably less difficult than that of the tenant of unfurnished premises, simply because unfurnished lettings are in such short supply. From that, one could say that the tenant of furnished lettings tends at present to be more mobile than the tenant who has taken unfurnished premises, who has furnished that temporary home and who then loses it and cannot find another unfurnished letting, because he may be obliged to store or sell his furniture.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend has taken a long time to tell us that it is rather more difficult to walk along the street carrying one's furniture than it is if one does not have any furniture. Can we now get on to the point?

Mr. Eyre: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take that aspect too lightly, because it is of practical concern to someone who is in that difficult position. It has been my duty to survey some of the difficulties which apply to this subject and to try to explain why such careful consideration has to be given to the matter.
Nevertheless, I certainly share my hon. Friend's desire to increase the quantity of accommodation available. That aim is very desirable. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction also shares that aim. We should be pleased if we could ease the situation of many people who are seeking accommodation of the kind that my hon. Friend has described. Having mentioned some of the difficulties which we have to consider, the Minister and I will give serious attention to all these points. Our aim is to improve the situation.

Mr. Cooke: If my hon. Friend cannot go the whole way, would he seriously consider producing an experiment in this direction? He and I cannot reconcile our arguments. He does not know how many are available. I think that it is a great many. Could he experiment? He could perhaps devise a way of doing so.

Mr. Eyre: I should like to be able to answer immediately but the legal implications make that impossible. However, my hon. Friend and I will pay serious regard to these suggestions and search anxiously for some way of making progress towards providing more accommodation for the kind of people on whose behalf my hon. Friend has been speaking tonight.

Orders of the Day — NORTH SEA OIL INSTALLATIONS

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the opportunity to raise in the debate on the Consolidated Fund the topic of the safety of North Sea oil installations. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will concede that I am right in arguing that, no matter how we adjust the pace, the exploration and exploitation of Contintal Shelf oil should not be prejudicial to the well-being of the men who man the drilling rigs, production platforms, the supply and support vessels and those who are engaged in the inspection of the devices in operation by means of diving techniques.
Some outsiders may argue that this debate is sparked off by recent happenings which have involved two semi-submersible drilling rigs, the Transocean 3 and the Transworld 61. To some extent that is true, but it is not the whole truth. During the passage of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installation) Act 1971 hon. Members pointed out the very different conditions which were involved in North Sea operations and said that these conditions became the more onerous when drilling and production became necessary in deeper waters.
To give an example of the effect of deeper waters on one element, wave height, in 300 feet of water more waves of over 30 feet will occur than those of over 20 feet closer to the shore. Therefore, in terms of design and construction techniques, a unit which can operate at one depth might be quite unsuitable when required for much deeper waters.
We are concerned about who is to judge. Is it to be the operator, the designer, the constructor or the Government, or are they all involved and how, therefore, do we get them all involved? To the best of my knowledge, no regulations exist on the evaluation of designs. It is left entirely to the operators and designers in conjunction with survey organisations such as Lloyds.
I was told in February 1973 that regulations for the construction of offshore installations covered a completely new field of industrial activity for the United Kingdom and consultations on the

framing of such regulations had taken much more time than was originally estimated. I understand that draft regulations were circulated in December 1972 on a confidential basis, but I do not think that that confidence has been kept. In a reputable institutional magazine we are told:
A draft was circulated confidentially in December last year."—
That is, December 1972—
It contains the DTI's up-to-date proposals for control over design and construction of installations used in United Kingdom offshore areas. It is really only one regulation—that every offshore installation shall have a certificate of fitness. The rest merely outlines how to get one: to submit the design to an independent certifying authority: mat the certifying authority's surveyor shall be satisfied as to correct construction, materials and workmanship: and that the supervising inspector is satisfied with its installation and platform equipment. The major ship classification authorities such as Lloyd's Register, Det Norske Veritas of Norway and Bureau Veritas of Paris are likely to be authorised for certification work by the DTI. Negotiations have been continuing quietly in recent months although no official appointments can be made until this section of the Act is laid before Parliament.
This is a serious state of affairs. I am unaware of the precautions that are taken at present in the construction and design of offshore installations. It strikes me as inadequate that these devices are being constructed without one body or several bodies having statutory approval under regulation of this Parliament.
I turn to the regulations currently in force. The Secretary of State has power to secure the registration of offshore installations being used on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. Were the Transocean 3 and the Transworld 61 so registered, and were details given of the nature and function, or proposed function, of these installations? These are fair questions despite the fact that the matter may be somewhat sub judice in view of the inquiry which the Department of Trade and Industry has suggested might take place. In simple terms, was the DTI informed that this specific class of semi-submersible, one of which was only recently completed at Hamburg, was to be used in operations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf?
If the answer to both questions is "Yes", what expertise is available to the Minister to evaluate the suitability of


such devices for different locations in the North Sea? The Minister will no doubt have read the letter by Mr. Bryan Hildrew in the Financial Times yesterday. Mr. Hildrew, who is Technical Director of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, endeavours to allay some of the fears expressed about the strength of the platforms at present being built at Nigg Bay and Graythorpe. He says:
While carrying out this work for classification we"—
that is Lloyd's Register—
have maintained continuous liaison with the DTI Petroleum Division to ensure that their latest thinking has been incorporated into the structure.
I accept that some of these functions, if not all of them—and we await clarification from the Minister who has been translated to the new Department of Energy—are within the scope of that Department. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how his new Department arrives at the latest thinking in the art of constructing such devices. What research and development facilities are available so that his Department can express a view on the most up-to-date aspects of the art? What is the value of the contracts for research and development work connected with the North Sea placed by, for instance, the Ship and Marine Technology Requirements Board? How much money have we spent as a nation to develop research and development with particular reference to the North Sea?
If I may put a tangential but important point, I have previously argued the need to produce a design of concrete platform which could be built in Central Scotland, with the Government assisting such a project. On closer examination I can see difficulties in doing this unless there could be a clear understanding between Government, designer, contractor and operator. The Government now feel that it is necessary to think of intervening to ensure that sites are available for contractors. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to say a little more about how they intend to do this to allay some of the fears that have been expressed in Scotland that some rights, in terms of objections to compulsory purchase orders and the holding of public inquiries, might be undermined unless the Government make the position clear.
Given all this intervention, the Government have not thought it appropriate to intervene in the arena of design and research and development. It is true that the operators and licensees will have placed upon them, individually and collectively, an obligation continuously to monitor the competence of these structures in operation. There does not appear to me to be any desire on the part of the Government to sponsor research which would seek to anticipate such behaviour. It is essential that we try to get Government-sponsored research and development, in association with the industry, to anticipate the conditions under which these structures are likely to operate.
The placing of production platforms of the magnitude of those likely to be placed in the Brent and the Forties fields has been likened to putting the Concorde in flight without a flight test programme. In the case of the Concorde, no stretch of the imagination can be used to suggest that the costs of research and development have fallen on the private sector, yet in the case of drilling rigs and production platforms the market approach is to prevail with little or no Government finance to be involved. Is this fair when we consider the massive potential revenues which will accrue to the Government from royalties and the taxation forthcoming from the potential flows of North Sea oil?
It may be that the structure of United Kingdom industry is a contributing factor to the reluctance of the Government. If it is, steps should be taken to initiate the research and development and to ensure that United Kingdom designers use the expertise with United Kingdom contractors and United Kingdom operators, if necessary by altering the industrial structure, which seems to be inappropriate to the needs of this new industry.
Time and the number of hon. Members who may wish to intervene do not permit me to deal adequately with the construction problems relating to North Sea gas. But I wonder whether the Minister will give the House some assurances about the safety standards used for the Frigg gas field. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry has demanded that the Frigg flame should have the capacity to dispose of the entire capacity of the


pipeline in the case of pipeline problems. If a capacity of 80 million cubic metres a day is envisaged, what additional devices are necessary for the safety of personnel and shipping?
Pipeline safety in construction is a further problem. What inspection agency do the Government consider adequate to undertake such work? Some of my hon. Friends have seen the vessels which Vickers Oceanics uses for pipeline inspection and repairs, and we expect an expansion of their operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has paid special attention to diving problems and the welfare of divers, and he knows the need for the Government to devise suitable regulations for such vessels as those used by Vickers. Do the Government intend to initiate pipeline surveys on their own behalf, or will they have access to the operators' own surveys? What do they intend in this connection?
This point and the eventual provision of sub-sea production techniques will tax diving skills, and, again, it requires Government action in terms of research and development to perfect these techniques.
When a life is lost or a huge and costly piece of capital expenditure is destroyed, public attention is riveted on the issue of North Sea oil and the dangers involved in exploration and exploitation. The happenings surrounding Transocean 3 will be reported in due course, and it is hoped that lessons will be learned. But it is the accumulation of knowledge and its application which should prevent further loss of life and materials.
Transocean 3 is not the first drilling rig to fall to the hazards of the North Sea. We all hope that it will be the last. But with 22 companies yet to complete their drilling programmes for the third and fourth round of licences, and with perhaps in the region of 100 production facilities eventually to be placed in the North Sea, this hope will become reality only if we marshall our resources of science and technology to the task.
The Government have likened the bringing ashore of North Sea oil to a war-time operation. In time of war men and materials become more expendable than in peace time. However, needless loss of life due to acceleration of the pace

of development in the North Sea or the absence of the necessary regulations or the employment of slipshod operators caring more for profit than for safety will not be tolerated. We are well behind other countries in terms of operations and safety regulations, especially the United States. It is high time that we brought our standards up to date and, if possible, advanced upon those of other nations.
Those who a week or so ago from the warmth of their own firesides watched the "Midweek" film which partially and, to some extent, inadequately dealt with the conditions under which the men who will win the oil work obtained some indication of the problems and hazards with which they have to contend.
We have yet to get the oil ashore. Some parties and their spokesmen take the view that the oil is already gushing forth. This is not so. Considerable engineering difficulties have yet to be overcome. If we are to complete this task, haste should not involve the loss of life or limb.
I beg to request the Minister to reply adequately in terms of the time-honoured practice of this House.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the opportunity of discussing the safety of offshore installations in the North Sea. I hope to demonstrate the need for a public inquiry into the loss of Transocean 3 and the subsequent difficulties of Transworld 61.
I do not think that anyone who knows the North Sea is in any doubt about the treacherous climatic conditions which apply. In the North-East and on the North coast of Scotland I doubt whether any single village or fishing community has been spared tragedy, or repeated tragedy, over the decades and centuries in which fishermen have sought to wrest a living from North Sea waters. The North Sea exacts a grim toll of those who seek the riches which lie beneath its turbulent waters. Of those who now seek the modern riches of North Sea gas and oil it has already taken human toll.
On Monday 27th December 1965 the self-elevating barge Sea Gem collapsed, capsized and sank approximately 43 miles east of the Humber. Of the crew of 32 men, 19 survived and 13 lost their lives.


An inquiry was held, first, by the Department concerned and, secondly, a tribunal was appointed in February 1967 to establish the circumstances of the accident. The hearing occupied 29 days, and its report was published on 26th July 1967. The tribunal decided that because of the difficulties it was not possible to generalise on construction methods. In paragraph 10.1 of the report it stated:
There is now a large number of oil drilling rigs of various nationalities, ownerships and types on location in the North Sea so that generalisations could well be both inapt and dangerous. It is unlikely that another drilling rig exactly like the Sea Gem will ever be constructed so that recommendations based on what the Tribunal might think would have made the Sea Gem a safer structure are little to the purpose. In terms of North Sea drilling the Sea Gem represented a pioneering, not to say an experimental project.
The tribunal, therefore, confined its recommendations to the management of offshore structures, and in paragraph 10.2 stated:
In some other countries, notably in the United States of America, there are statutory provisions for regulating the management of Artificial Islands and Fixed Structures on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Tribunal is of the opinion that a code of similar authority supported by credible sanctions ought to be made applicable to British structures of like kind.
Since 1965 there have been other losses in the North Sea, though happily there has not been any further loss of life. But it is worth bearing in mind that by 1965 throughout the world 24 of the 200 installations at that time working had been lost in 14 years. Therefore, we know that there is a long history of failures of structures operating in the sea.
Conditions in the North Sea off Scotland are much worse even than those off the Humber. Storm waves can reach 100 ft., wind conditions can rise to 100 miles an hour and more, sea temperatures can drop to 4°C, and air temperatures can drop to below freezing point. Work is now being carried out in waters 400 ft. deep, but it could be done at a depth of 600 ft. deep. These conditions have never before been experienced anywhere in the world, and stringent safety conditions and measures are needed to make sure that design and construction are safe.
The number of rigs is increasing every year. By the end of last year 14 rigs were operating in the North Sea off Scotland,

and it has been estimated that that figure will rise to 25 or 30 towards the middle of this year. It was estimated in September that 38 out of 91 mobile rigs under construction throughout the world were for operation in the North Sea, and it is against that background that we must evaluate the loss of Trans-ocean 3 and the evacuation of Transworld 61.
Transocean 3 capsized 100 miles south of Shetland at the Beryl field. We do not know exactly what happened, and events will have to tell us what transpired, but it is thought that Transocean 3 sprang a leak in one of its support legs. It developed a list, the crew were transferred to Transworld 61 and then flown off by helicopter.
Transworld 61 is now under tow in the North Sea, and it is believed to have shown signs of collapse. Its operators maintain that it is not far from its eventual destination in Norway, but I was told yesterday by informed sources in Aberdeen that it has been blown far north of Stavanger.
Transocean 3 is also still in the North Sea. One of its broken-off legs is drifting and is a hazard to other rigs operating in the area and also to general shipping. This rig cost £10 million, and was completed in Hamburg as late as the end of 1973. I am told that it was certificated for use in the North Sea by the American Bureau of Shipping and by the German Lloyd Inspectorate, but there is a Press report, which bears serious examination, that this rig was designed for much calmer waters, possibly the Mediterranean, and was not really designed for the North Sea. I agree that that has been vigorously denied by the operators, but there is a quotation in the Daily Express on Tuesday 8th January, apparently from a spokesman of the builders, H.W.D. Hamburg.
He said:
We built the rig according to plans supplied by our customer… and they were for rigs being used in Pacific waters or in the quiet Mediterranean. Possibly they could not stand up to the rough waters of the North Sea.
That was denied by the operators, but the quote goes on to say:
But at the same time, Transocean's London boss, Mr. Leo le Bron, was talking to officials of the shipbuilders in Germany to probe the source of the statements.


I have not seen what has transpired since then, but that is a good enough reason for a strong inquiry.
We know that the Department is conducting its own inquiry—I am not sure whether it is now the Department of Energy or still the Department of Trade and Industry—but much more is required because, curiously enough, the Department of Trade and Industry has given the impression that it has no statutory powers to hold an inquiry. This may be official caution in dealing with newspapers—I do not know—but I think that we should be given the answer to that tonight.
Whether or not there are statutory powers to hold a public inquiry—and I hope that we can be given an assurance tonight that such powers exist—there is a precedent for a non-statutory inquiry, because the tribunal investigating the loss of the "Sea Gem" had no statutory powers. Indeed, there is an interesting quote from the tribunal's report. It says:
The Tribunal was without statutory authority, had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, nor was it empowered to administer oaths. So generous, however, was the contribution of all concerned that there can hardly ever have been an investigation better served by those who offered evidence.
The co-operation of those operating Transocean 3 and Transworld 61 would be forthcoming, but if there is any doubt about that the Minister should have no hesitation in using his powers under the Continental Shelf Act and withdrawing the exploration licences. That is a sanction which we hope would never need to be used, but it is at present the only sanction.
I accept that this inquiry would deal only with the immediate situation of those two rigs. What is urgently needed is regulations relating to registration of rigs. On the Second Reading of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, Earl Ferrers, for the Government, said:
My Lords, I think that we are the first country in the world to bring forward comprehensive safety legislation on this particular subject. Other countries are equally interested in the safety of these workpeople, and our North Sea neighbours will no doubt be watching with interest the progress of this draft legislation. We are sure that all countries will welcome moves to provide for the safety of these activities. Indeed, it may well

be that the initiative we are taking will spur others to do the same. This is one of the very few areas of employment where safety is not yet controlled by Statute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th February 1971 ; Vol. 315, c. 743.]
Those were very optimistic words about the legislation. A clear impression was given that consultations with the oil licensees had shown that offshore operators were receptive to the Government's proposals and that there would be no delay in working out these proposals.
During the Committee stage of that Act the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), was even more forthcoming. On being pressed by hon. Members as to when regulations would come forward, he said:
We hope to be as speedy as possible in getting regulations drafted and made into an order which can be laid before the House, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a difference between the Clause 2 and Clause 3 regulations. It may not be possible to bring them into effect at the same time. Indeed, there may be different classes of orders within those Clauses. The intention is to get the first regulations complete and published within six months, but it may take a little longer to get all the regulations completed."—[OFFICIAL RLPORT, Standing Committee G, 17th June 1971 ; c. 5.]
We have all heard the saying—to which I shall not attribute authorship—that a week is a long time in politics. But that six months has stretched into two and a half years. As far as I am aware, not one set of regulations has reached the House. The regulations on registration are not the only regulations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Emery): The hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. Therefore, perhaps it would be better if I intervened now. Four sets of regulations have not only reached the House but been approved by the House.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad to hear that. People whom I have consulted in the past few days are certainly not aware of registrations.
The fact remains that registration regulations are not the only regulations or necessarily the most important. The Act gave the Government very wide powers. It was full of delegated legislation. Section 3, for example, gave the Government powers over construction and survey.


Like most hon. Members, I appreciate that in the North Sea we are working on the frontiers of technology. New designs are proliferating, as each new company decides to move forward. Construction in concrete is proposed, as are all kinds of things. But we must always remember that so far no production platform has been delivered. Therefore, we are waiting for others to come forward We are dealing with constructions composed of about 25,000 tons of steel, and the stress calculations must be immensely complicated. As an engineering designer of very modest proportions, I realise why the Act was made up of delegated legislation.
Two and a half years is far too long a time to wait for all the regulations to come forward, especially as we have been told from the beginning that the industry was co-operative, receptive and anxious to help. There may be some reason for thinking that something has gone awry in the Department of Trade and Industry because of this delay.
What is essential to the safety of the installations is the safety of the personnel employed on the rigs. This is a matter of much concern when we are awaiting regulations. I hope that this matter was meant to be in the letter which the Minister sent to me on 7th May 1973 about regulations and working conditions. I certainly have not seen it. I should be delighted to hear whether it was. There is a great need for a thorough investigation into working conditions. There have been many allegations about them. For example, it is said that men are working 84 and even 100 hours a week and that on some rigs when one shift goes on to work the shift coming off simply goes into the same beds using the same bed linen. I appreciate that these complaints are hard to substantiate. Many of those who operate on the rigs will say in private what goes on but as soon as they are asked for chapter and verse—the name of the rig and the name of the employer—they turn coy because they fear dismissal.
That is one reason why we need a full investigation. There is no power of trade unions to ensure that proper conditions obtain. Men cannot be organised on the North Sea as they can be on

shore. Complaints have also been lodged with Lord Polwarth. Supply vessels which are not registered to carry crews for the rigs are ferrying men to and from the rigs without proper safety equipment. There have been investigations into this by Lord Polwarth but so far there has been no prosecution of the vessel owners concerned.
The whole story of exploration for oil in the North Sea has been marred by a lack of Government foresight in planning. I do not believe we can allow this situation to continue into the realm of safety. The sums involved are immense, and one would imagine that companies spending £20 million, £40 million or even £50 million on a platform would make sure that it was safe. Nevertheless, we know that Transocean 3, which cost £10 million, was not safe. The whole history of merchant shipping legislation has been one of Governments battling against intransigent owners who were not prepared to look after the safety of their men and were prepared to put profits above men's lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will be able to tell us that even today there are unscrupulous shipowners. I am not suggesting that there is an exact parallel in the North Sea. What I do say is this: the prize of economic progress is great for Scotland. The prize for the United Kingdom in self-reliance of energy is immense. We cannot allow that prize to be paid for in men's lives through either lack of legislation or lack of resolve by the Government to implement the legislation already on the statute book.

10.37 p.m.

Mrs Margo MacDonald: The debate is about safety regulations, or the lack of them, in the oil industry in the Scottish part of the North Sea. Hon. Members have already referred to the speed and haste of the Government in pushing ahead with the oil exploration and, we hope, exploitation.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) referred to the long history of unscrupulous behaviour on the part of shipowners, and we hope that it will not carry on into the oil industry. But neither the hon.


Member nor his hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said why the Government were in such a haste to exploit the oil. I would suggest the lack of safety regulations is symptomatic of the attitude of panic by the Government towards the oil industry generally. Since I came to this House all I have heard about has been the serious economic situation. All I have heard is that the way out is for the Government to get their hands on the oil as quickly as possible, to take the oil and the revenues. That is why the Government are prepared to put exploitation of the oil before safety. The Department of Trade and Industry and now the Department of Energy appear to be permitting proper considerations of safety for those directly and indirectly involved to be bypassed in the haste to get hold of the oil and the revenues.
How else can the Minister explain away the fact that he appears to have shelved the powers given to him by the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971? We keep hearing of the Act, which appears to be very broad, yet everyone complains that there are not enough regulations covering all the parts of the industry.
The Act allows the Government to introduce very wide powers. Why has not the Minister laid down regulations concerning the structure, strength and suitability for the climatic conditions in the North Sea of the rigs? Will he give us an assurance that he will soon take measures to enable his Department to exercise control over the standards and design of such rigs so that we do not have a repeat of the performance of Transocean 3?
I believe that the German shipbuilders who admitted that it was not constructed for use in waters such as the North Sea spoke out of turn, before the operators were able to put their point of view on record, and that that is the truth of the matter, that the rig was not constructed for the North Sea. Will the Minister take those measures as a matter of urgency, as other rigs presently in use in the North Sea are of the same design as Transocean 3?
There are all sorts of spin-off hazards. One of the legs of Transocean 3 is still drifting around in the North Sea, constituting

a danger to shipping, oil rigs and the rig safety vessels standing off the oil rigs. The Government must bring pressure to bear on the owners of the rig to remove the danger.
We all know that the Government are afraid to deal more firmly with the oil companies, because they have the mistaken idea that the companies may pull out of the North Sea. But there is nowhere else the companies can go. They must explore and exploit the North Sea. The Government have the whip hand, and could ask the oil companies to clear up the litter they leave behind.
If the rig leg collided with one of the rig safety vessels, lives could well be lost, because in the opinion of the skippers commanding those vessels they are merely worn-out trawlers which were not built for the job they are doing or the conditions in which they are doing it. Will the Minister also bring into force regulations to ensure that suitable and safe vessels are used for this work?
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Minister to impress on his right hon. and hon. Friends the necessity to make the rate of oil exploitation match the community's ability both to take advantage of it and to guard against the hazards created by it.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire suggested that some political parties had assumed that the oil was already gushing and were expecting a quick return from it. I do not know of any such stupid political parties. The longer the oil remains under the sea, the more valuable it becomes. We have plenty of time to make sure that we are geared up technologically, socially and physically to take advantage of the industry and make it work for us, instead of asking the people who live around the area to work for the industry.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: According to the hon. Lady's view, is the oil to be extracted more quickly or more slowly?

Mrs. MacDonald: I have already said at what rate I think the oil should be exploited. It should match our ability to take advantage of the opportunities created by it and to counter the hazards created by it. I believe that the Government have recently said that they wish


almost to double their intended rate of exploitation. That is far too much. My party has said that we expect revenues of £800 million a year from North Sea oil by 1980, which I think on present figures would allow us to take 60 million to 80 million tons.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I am venturing into hostile waters when I discuss Scottish matters, but I want to say something about the problem because it is of great concern to those employed in the industry and to those of us associated with maritime affairs and interested in the safety of workers.
The area of employment that we are now debating is one where the waters are extremely hostile and create very hazardous conditions. The safety of the oil rigs is essential. It is essential for the House to understand these matters because the solution, or at least the first step towards establishing safety on the rigs, is in the hands of the House. It is by statutory regulations in maritime matters that the real standards are set. Therefore, we have a great responsibility.
The importance of oil does not have to be emphasised. The search for oil, and particularly in the North Sea, will undoubtedly increase. It is of concern that safety may be overlooked or that corners may be cut in the search. It is up to hon. Members to ensure that we legislate correctly and fairly so that adequate safety standards are laid down.
There are now 17 rigs within United Kingdom waters under the Continental Shelf Act 1964. It is estimated that there will be approximately 45 by 1975. Those figures give an indication of the sort of increase in exploration which we shall see. The rigs vary in size, some having crews of up to 100 men. I have had the opportunity to visit a number of rigs, particularly when I was in Committee on the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill, which is now an Act, and the Act to which we are now referring, which is basically an enabling Act which gives power to the Department to introduce regulations in a number of spheres of activity.
That legislation provided us with an opportunity to visit some of the rigs,

including Sea Quest, which is sometimes advertised as the hotel in the North Sea. I visited it by helicopter and I stayed overnight. Some of my constituents and some close friends were working on it as divers and other workers. The rigs look massive in the shipyards but they seem small when they are placed in the North Sea. When people see them as photographs in the newspapers or in film on television they may appear to be massive constructions. It may seem that there is no need to worry about safety. However, when it is remembered that Transocean 3 was completely destroyed in about four hours, that is an indication of the elements with which we are playing and the importance which must be given to the design of the structures.
I have seen the figures which appeared in a recent study by a Cambridge research fellow, and it appears that since 1955 42 rigs have suffered some form of serious incident and that 10 per cent. of those rigs were write-offs. That means that on average we are losing rigs as complete write-offs, apart from other serious incidents, at the rate of approximately two and a third a year. Naturally that figure will increase as the number of oil rigs used in the exploration increases.
In United Kingdom waters we have had the tragic example of the Sea Gem which collapsed off Hull. On that occasion 13 men died. The only welcome factor to emerge from that incident was that it initiated action which eventually led to legislation and regulations. The Sea Gem collapsed in 1965 along with the rig Conoco. Both rigs collapsed off Hull. In 1968 there was the Ocean Prince incident. In 1969 the Constellation collapsed. They were all in trouble from towing operations off Flamborough Head. Even though the rigs were not in waters off Scotland, the weather was sufficient to upset that kind of construction.
Those incidents have occurred in United Kingdom waters. They show the real seriousness of what is beginning to happen. They give rise to doubts about the safety of design and construction of some rigs. In December 1972 and January 1973 and the latter part of last November, we have witnessed five incidents in Scottish waters. Three of them involved vessels each with eight anchor lines. They


were uprooted by the strength of the elements and the rigs were thrown to the mercy of the elements. The Transworld 61 and the Transocean 3 both had their crews evacuated, one sinking and the other disabled. Transocean 3 was only a few months old, and it was destroyed in a few hours.
Clearly, these incidents must raise important points of design problems. The Minister will be aware that when these incidents occurred I wrote to the Department and asked him to conduct an immediate inquiry into the design properties of this type of rig—and I was picking out particular types. All forms of rig construction face particular problems in this sphere, but this type of semi-submersible floating rig creates extra problems in these circumstances. Is the Department looking seriously at whether it gives permission for them to continue drilling operations in these weathers?
It is true that there are types of drilling ships—a halfway house—and these, in the main, are not insured by insurance companies to operate in the North Sea weathers, primarily because they are not considered safe enough to do so. My information is that Transworld 61 was at one stage refused insurance coverage to operate in the North Sea weathers, and I wonder whether the Minister would like to confirm this.
It was not designed in any way for North Sea weather, but, like most design in this sphere, it was largely determined by areas which do not have the kind of inclement weather we have in the North Sea with all the different types of challenge there are there.
This was not the first incident with this type of rig. There have been others which included evacuation of crews from this rig. There are other good grounds for being concerned about this type of design, which has caused concern to those in the industry for some time.
It is always put forward as an argument that the organisations which cover the rigs are the classification societies, and that they in their researches look into these matters and that, by making classification an essential requirement for rigs, the standards the societies lay down are of sufficient standard. I do not doubt that considerable research is done and

that advantage is taken of that and that it is incorporated into the design.
We have to bear in mind that this is a new area and the classification societies are largely competitive among themselves, a factor which the Government are about to change with their classification proposals in the Merchant Shipping Bill which will weaken the Government's position in having essential information from different societies which they need to know about different design to compile legislation. If one concentrates all one's eggs in one basket, the position will be difficult. The Minister looks puzzled at that but I think he understands, and I will not advert on the matter until the debates on the Merchant Shipping Bill.
The main classification for our rigs has been done by the American Bureau of Shipping, and many of the rigs are covered by its standards, which, quite frankly, do not always reflect North Sea conditions, which has perhaps been the problem also for some other classification societies.
This particular type of rig—the semi-submersible—reflects what is happening in the trend of the search for oil. Sea Gem, Conoco, and Ocean Prince were basically of the kind of jack-up design which were largely for waters of less than 200 feet to 300 feet. Now we are going into considerably deeper waters, so they can no longer be constructed as drilling rigs fastened to the sea bed. Therefore, one will have to design some other kind of construction. I have tried to suggest in my letter to the Minister calling for an inquiry that there is a danger to all types of rig, but clearly, if a rig is 100 feet out of the water it is less susceptible to waves of 100 feet or 50 feet and at 50 mph, which are described as reasonable conditions, but which were those under which the Transocean 3 collapsed and the Transworld 61 ran into difficulties. Those are considered normal conditions—100 mph winds and 100 feet high waves—in the North Sea. A high construction, several hundred feet high, is much less likely to be battered by such winds than a vessel of low construction floating on the water.
Considering all that, and such questions as metal fatigue, there is serious doubt, as the evidence shows, whether we should allow such constructions as are


now operating to continue to operate in such conditions, which occurs especially in winter. A continual attempt is being made to "open the window" on the North Sea, and to operate for long periods of time, and this is a highly expensive time for this industry, but we must look seriously to see whether constructions of these designs should be allowed to continue in the North Sea. This is an essential priority job the Government must undertake.
As the inquiry into the Sea Gem pointed out, some investigations were required to be done. I do not think the Government have done any at all since then. I am not sure they have commissioned any. Perhaps the Minister would give us information about that. The point has been well made tonight that this is a priority.
I hope the Minister will bring before the House any regulations he has. At least then we could begin to get an understanding of what the Government's position is. Drafts of regulations have been circulating for some time now. If they were brought before the House we could express an opinion on them. It is most important to have some form of regulations to govern this business, where presently none exists, and only the classification societies are exercising any power.
While it is important to have legislation, it is equally important to have personnel trained and skilled in safety measures and operations. There are several points I want to make about that.
First, though, I should like to congratulate the Government on bringing in the four sets of regulations they have, although they have been slow about bringing any more since, and that is a criticism which must be answered by the Minister tonight.
I have taken a particular interest in diving operations, and friends of mine are engaged in that work, in terrible conditons, and work for which no regulations exist whatsoever. There has even been a difference of opinion about whether there should be regulations for safety. I got myself involved in that battle. I congratulate the Minister on having grasped that nettle in the one field of which I am reasonably well conversant ; I congratulate him on getting hold of the essential

priority of safety. One looks forward to having regulations about that shortly.
As the Minister knows, a diver died in the North Sea just recently. He was a diver from one of the rigs. His body was missing. I believe that it has been found off the coast of Holland. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, and I hope he will give us an indication of what led to the death of the diver. In talking of regulations, I would not like to do so without saying that the Government are to be congratulated on grasping hold of that one nettle anyway.
If they approach the making of other regulations in the same manner as they approached that matter, and grasp the essential point, and line themselves upon the side of safety, as they did over diving and diving bells, after a diver had been 14 hours in the water before being pulled out, they will go a long way towards satisfying my friends about the quality of the safety regulations and about the complaints we have been making.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that Professor Alex Mair of Dundee University is deeply unhappy about the regulations relating to depths below 400 feet?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend must be talking about the proposed regulations. I do not want to drag the debate into a discussion on diving, but perhaps we can talk about it later. Instead of a man being sent down in a canvas suit and a helmet, the regulations will now provide for him to go down in a bell with another diver, and to be brought to the surface and transferred. I have a practice certificate myself for diving, which I obtained in a canvas suit and a helmet. Perhaps we shall be given an opportunity at some time to discuss the regulations.
There are pressures for legislation about submarines. Another Minister said that he did not see the need for legislation, but he has now accepted it. The report on the "Pisces" incident will give us more information about safety needs in this area and is eagerly awaited.
We are awaiting the Government recommendations about the training of divers. The information that I was given in May 1972 was that they would be coming forward shortly. There seems to have been some dragging of feet ; perhaps we can be told about that.
Radio officers are not compulsory on these rigs. They are the essential link in the chain of safety, yet no regulations are laid down about their quality. Perhaps the regulations could require these officers to be of Post Office standard and to have some experience in telegraphy and other essential requirements. Perhaps they could also provide for the presence of trained medical staff to the standard of State-registered nurse.
The rigs have Drucker capsules instead of lifeboats. I hope that there will be safety regulations about and exercises in their operation, as there are on merchant ships, so that people can familiarise themslves with essential procedures. Some rigs carry out these procedures, but not all of them.
One vessel apparently had its helicopter pad ripped off its operating strip. Some pilots are not happy about the construction of helicopter pads. We should be assured that they are safe. One of the essential differences between such vessels as Transworld 61 and Transocean 3 and a ship is the rôle of the helicopter in evacuating crews.
I have emphasised the importance of regulations for the design of the rigs, but other safety requirements are also important. I do not know what are the Minister's responsibilities now as Under-Secretary of State for Energy, but formerly he was responsible for social conditions.
About a month ago 50 men in my area were sacked and replaced by Spaniards. A letter has been written to the Department protesting about the men's lack of rights. Their contracts are worthless. They are, however, exempt from the operation of the Industrial Relations Act, and perhaps that is why there are not many disputes in the industry. The Department of Employment promised to look into the question of regulations. The workers need a social charter. They are entitled to decent working conditions and reasonable working hours. The right type of man would then be attracted to the industry. The danger is that they are replaced by cheap labour from countries that have no maritime experience, and those men will be unable to respond satisfactorily in dangerous situations. It is essential to have the right kind of men on the rigs.
We need a new social charter. Is the Minister considering this? That, accompanied by safety regulations, would be a great step forward in improving the lot of workers on rigs.

11.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Emery): It is always a pleasure to follow the speech made by a renowned expert on the subject on which he has spoken. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is known to be the leading expert in the House on the subject of diving, and it is, therefore, a great pleasure to follow him.
The new Department of Energy is responsible for the safety of offshore oil and gas operations in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. I make that position clear because there has been some doubt about it. We are completely and utterly sold on the need for adequate safety provisions and regulations for those who work on the rigs and permanent platforms and who service rigs and installations in the North Sea. I hope that I shall be able to rebut several criticisms that have been made as much from lack of knowledge as for any other reason.
All operations are monitored by the Petroleum Production Inspectorate, which, apart from making routine inspections to ensure that safety regulations and terms and conditions of licences are being met, invariably makes immediate inquiries into all accidents involving loss of life or risk to life. I do not think that that is understood, and it is important to get it on the record.
The present method of enforcing safety requirements is by non-statutory conditions attached to petroleum exploration and production licences granted by the Department. That refutes the allegation made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) that we have paid no regard to this aspect. Even before regulations are introduced we have ensured that safety requirements are tied up with the licensing conditions. These arrangements are being replaced by a comprehensive code of statutory safety, health and welfare regulations under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971. These regulations have not been shelved. They are being made. We shall review them.
Four sets of regulations have been made concerning registration of installations, appointment of installation managers, keeping of log books and registration of deaths and so on, and the powers and duties of inspectors, accident notification and inspection. The two which are probably the most important, and which are now being drafted, concern the construction and survey of installations and diving regulations. All these are in an advanced state. The construction and survey regulations should be made within the month.
This is not just in response to the debate. Often one has to bring something forward to answer an Adjournment debate. The problems have been considerable and the consultation that has taken place has been as great as with any legislation that I have known, mainly because we are dealing with evolving technology and because, in construction and design, we are working with conditions never before faced when using rigs or building platforms—conditions which many Americans did not realise existed.

Mr. Douglas: May I tempt the Minister a little further? Will he tell the House whether these construction regulations will apply to concrete platforms as well as the steel variety?

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to be able to be tempted occasionally and to respond to such temptation. The simple answer is "Yes".
We are still dealing with regulations concerning emergency equipment and procedures, employers' liability, operational safety, health and welfare and regulations affecting public inquiries. I refute any suggestion that there has been any dragging of feet on the part of the Government. I had been responsible, in my earlier incarnation at the Department of Trade and Industry, and now in the Department of Energy, for ensuring that these matters were proceeded with properly and with speed but not undue haste. There had to be accuracy, and we would have been condemned if this had not been so. During the course of consultation, particularly on matters to do with construction and survey, things have gone backwards and forwards a number of times because, for instance, standards of tensile

strengths which might have been acceptable in 1971 are not now acceptable. We have had to rethink certain of the factors which concern these specific regulations.
The policy intention is that those engaged in the often hazardous operation of offshore work in the search for minerals, especially oil and gas, shall have the full protection of a statutory code of safety, health and welfare provisions in the same way as their fellows on land or in mines beneath the surface of the land.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Will the construction and survey regulations apply fully to existing rigs at present in operation as well as to those which may be constructed in the future?

Mr. Emery: I think that the answer is "Yes". If there is any alteration in that, I shall of course write to the hon. Gentleman. My intention is that they will.
The regulations on the safety, design and construction of installations will require that within a stipulated period all installations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf will have to possess a certificate of fitness to operate. I think that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point. If at the moment they are not fit, they will have to be brought up to the conditions that we require. Certificates will be granted only after careful study of the design and construction data and a full survey of the structure. Certificates may impose conditions about the areas in which a structure may be employed and the time of the year in which it may operate. If imposed, these conditions will take into account the characteristics of the structure, obviously, in relation to environmental and meteorological conditions likely to be encountered.
I now come to try to deal with a number of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) asked me about the evaluation of designs. I have dealt with much of that in what I have said already.
The hon. Gentleman then asked whether Transocean was registered. The answer is "Yes".
The hon. Gentleman's next question related to the amount of research and development available. On the whole, the research is under the control of the Ship and Marine Technology Board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Nigel Boakes. There are representatives of the Government, of industry and of the academic side on the research and development board.
The hon. Gentleman also wanted to know the amount of expenditure. Off the cuff, I believe that it is £1·5 million. It is in that area. There is pressure from a number of people that it should be raised. But that is specifically in this area, and I am not able to add the amount of research and development which has been carried out by individual firms in the work that they have been doing, though I believe that it represents many times that figure.
The hon. Gentleman's last question related to the safety of the gas flow from Frigg. This is dealt with in two ways. Obviously, our own safety regulations will not cover any platform operating outside the British Continental Shelf. But once the pipelining comes into the British side of the Continental Shelf, that pipelining, the conditions for working on it and any production platform will have to meet British requirements.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) asked whether there would be a public inquiry into the Trans-ocean 3 episode. A full inquiry is being made, and a report will be made to the Offshore Installations Technical Advisory Committee, which will study the lessons to be learned from it. They will be made the subject of recommendations. I see no reason why the report from that body should not be made public. However, I reject the request for a public inquiry. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Sea Gem as an illustration. There was a loss of 13 lives there. In this instance there was no loss of life at all.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Although there was no loss of life concerned with Trans-ocean 3, the difference between no loss of life and loss of life was only four hours, which is a very short time. It was for that reason that I asked for an inquiry. But if the inquiry that the Minister is conducting will be made public, that is as good as a public inquiry.

Mr. Emery: I stand by the words that I used. I will not get into an argument on the number of hours. If a man takes four hours to cross a road he is likely to get hit. I do not want to get involved in that argument. I understand the point being made.
The hon. Gentleman stressed the need for the registration of installations. I am delighted to be able to respond quickly and say that we have brought that procedure into being.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that profit came before men's lives. I reject that allegation absolutely. Considering how the companies here have co-operated with the Department of Trade and Industry previously in the consultations, assisting the inspectorate to get the necessary information, and building up the expertise that is required, I do not think the hon. Gentleman would really want to make that kind of accusation.
The hon. Member for Govan talked about speed and haste in pressing forward. I think that we have shown that we have gone to great lengths to provide the necessary safeguards under the licensing procedure, and we are now providing the safeguards by statutory methods. There is no haste in this matter. We want to go forward with a degree of safety related to the thoroughness of being able to bring in proper and sensible regulations.
There has been no panic in dealing with the oil companies. There has, in fact, been close co-operation. No oil company, nor any of the inspectorate or staff in my Department, would agree with the hon. Member for Govan in attempting to substantiate a very dramatic phrase which sounds very nice but is meaningless in this respect.
The Government have gone to great lengths, through IMEG, through the OSO, through work on the environmental side and through the building up of the infrastructure, to ensure that this matter is dealt with properly. They have been proceeding with speed, yes, but thoroughly and properly with due consideration of Scotland's problems in this matter. Indeed, the Department is to be congratulated on the way that it has dealt with this matter.

Mr. Prescott: It sounds like 7th February.

Mr. Emery: Somebody might be able to use it for that purpose.
The hon. Member for Govan referred to the leg of Transocean 3 breaking and the superstructure floating away. I do not know how much of this matter has been published, but it might interest hon. Members to know that when the rig broke loose a close watch, both by air and by sea, was kept on it. Indeed, in conjunction with the company, the Admiralty was willing to sent out a boat and the Royal Air Force was prepared to use aircraft to sink the obstruction if there was any danger of a collision with shipping. The company had agreed that if that were done it would bear all the costs which the Government would have incurred. That shows the thoroughness with which the inspectorate and my Department are dealing with the problems that arise in the North Sea.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about insurance for Transworld 61. I understand that at some time there had been insurance difficulties. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the superstructure had to be strengthened before Transworld 61 could be covered by insurance.
Petroleum production inspectors regularly inspect rigs and platforms to ensure that conditions are safe and reasonable, and that the conditions of the licence are being carried out.
Now I come to the question of trained personnel. I take on board the point made about trained radio telegraphists and medical staff. It is the intention to lay down requirements for those types of staff, and, following the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I should want to look at this matter again to see whether we can meet the point that has been made so sensibly.
When one considers the amount of work done by the offshore industry and, indeed, the manner in which the work is done, one realises that it has a good record of safety consciousness. It has adopted a highly responsible attitude in its consultations with the Government and other interested parties, and we are most grateful for that because our regulations would not be as good as they are if that had not been the case.
This process has been time-consuming for the Department and for a multitude

of organisations that have contributed expert opinions and views, but it has been worth while. I am delighted that we have had this debate, because perhaps we have cleared up a number of misunderstandings about such matters as whether the regulations even existed. This has been an interesting debate, and I am glad that the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire chose this topic for consideration.

Orders of the Day — MID AND SOUTH-WEST WALES

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I wish to raise as briefly as possible some of the problems confronting the people in my constituency and, indeed, in the area that can fairly clearly be defined as South-West and Mid-Wales.
On looking at the Estimates, it appears at first sight that this debate should be limited to something called
Other Environmental Services, &c, Wales",
but on making a few inquiries I have found that the salary of the Secretary of State is paid out of this Vote. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems surprised. Perhaps he has not inquired where his salary comes from. My information is that it comes out of this rather large fund. Since that is the case and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has overall responsibility for economic matters in Wales, as well as other specific matters, I understand that it is not out of order to raise some of the economic considerations which are affecting the area.
As hon. Members will know, the area is a fairly mixed one in the sense that most of it is agricultural and dependent on agriculture but part of it, especially the part which I have the honour to represent, is mainly industrial. It is the only large industrial area in the whole of South-West and Mid-Wales. I should like briefly, therefore, to draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the House to some of the rather pressing problems which face this industrial area in this corner of South-West Wales.
I make no apology for telling the House, if it does not know already, that one of the major problems is caused by the three-day week. This problem affects not only my area but the whole of Wales


over which the Secretary of State, together with his Cabinet colleagues, has overall economic responsibility.
The three-day week is grievously affecting industrial workers in my constituency. We have the tinplate industry, which is substantially affected, and this affects the whole economy of Britain. We have parts of the motor car industry, which again is substantially affected by the Government's decision to impose a three-day week. We have quite important engineering factories, which again are affected in this way.
What my constituents cannot understand is, first, why all this was necessary, because they are not convinced by the Government's propaganda. Secondly, they cannot understand the unfairness of it all, because in other parts of the country people are able to work for five days. A typist in a typing pool in London may have to do without a bit of light but she can work for five days and draw her full salary. Thus the unfairness of the imposition of the three-day week affects large numbers of people such as I have mentioned and the industrial areas to a far greater extent than it affects the service industries and the service areas of London and the South-East. My constituents ask themselves, therefore, why all this is necessary and why they should be singled out in this way whereas other parts of the country are not suffering so much.
The Government will say that this is all because of the miners. I do not want to pursue that argument, but I assure the House of one thing: that the workers in my constituency do not blame the miners of Wales or Britain for the situation in which they find themselves. If the Government believe that they will make the miners the scapegoat for the three-day week, I can assure them that as regards Wales—I can speak only for Wales—they are making a grievous mistake. People are not so stupid or ill-informed today that they will fall for the claim that all the problems of the three-day week have been caused by the miners.
The second problem is the way the Government and the mining industry are engaged in this locked combat, a confrontation which in my opinion is completely unnecessary. If only the Government were to look at the realities of the mining industry, the economics of the situation

and the need to produce as much coal as we possibly can in view of the events in the Middle East, if only they would look at the situation realistically instead of sticking to a policy which was drawn up long before the Middle East war and long before the problems concerning oil arose, and if only they would realise that events have overtaken them, they would realise that there is no need to have this confrontation with the miners.
On any economic ground, on any ground which a Government of business men should understand and on any grounds of commerce, the miners are entitled to every penny for which they are asking. The Government, however, for their own reasons for face, pride, arrogance and the stupidity of their leadership are unable to come to a reasonable agreement with the miners.
There is a large anthracite pit in my constituency now short of about 400 men. There are a number of reasons, but one is that the wages there are not sufficient to compensate for the dangers and rigours of working underground. There is something wrong with an economic situation in which women in the motor industry earn more than men working underground at Cynheidre.
The miners are angry because the Government persist in saying that the National Coal Board's offer to the miners is 16½ per cent. This suggestion infuriates miners, for only a small proportion of those working at Cynheidre, the only large pit in my constituency, will receive anything like 16 per cent. The Government should get off their propaganda horse and forget about confrontation and pay the miners the economic rate.
That would not damage the country, for everybody knows that the miners are a special case, that the industry is, and always has been, a special case, and is even more of a special case in view of the price of oil and the difficulties in the Middle East. If the Government want the issue reduced to simple terms, every lump of coal that the miners get out of the ground means a saving in oil, thus a saving in the expensive dollars needed to buy oil, and in the past few days we have all seen how dollars have become more and more expensive.
If a settlement comes, as it is bound to come one day, whether before or after a General Election, the Government will


have to make a massive investment in the industry, not only in South-West Wales but in other areas. Mining will still be dangerous, but it can be made a safer and easier job if massive sums are spent on capital equipment. Nobody wants to send men underground. Mining is dangerous and unpleasant, but we shall need the coal increasingly, and if we are prepared to spend vast sums we can to some extent ameliorate the difficult conditions underground.
The two major problems in South-West Wales are the three-day week and the Government's confrontation of the miners. My constituents blame not the miners but the Government for stupidity and arrogance.
The third problem that we face is lack of public investment. Some people have told us that Government expenditure has been too high, and that may have been true in terms of the amount raised in taxation. But the problem in the regions, as my hon. Friends know very well, is that public expenditure has not been high enough. One way in which to redistribute income from the richer to the poorer areas is to have high public spending in the regions financed by high taxation falling proportionately more on the wealthier areas. Higher public investment in regions such as ours serves two functions. It provides the necessary services. It also contributes to shifting some wealth from the wealthy parts of Britain to parts which are less wealthy.
My fear for the future, however, is that the Government—I am sure that they will—through a Minister at the Dispatch Box, will announce a very large loan from the International Monetary Fund. They are bound to do that, otherwise the country will rapidly become bankrupt. My fear is that the loan will have imposed upon it very stringent conditions, some of which will involve a substantial cutback in public investment and expenditure. That will damage the poorer regions, which need every penny of Government money which they can get.
No one can pretend that the problems of Wales or of Britain will diminish over the next few years. We have the gloomy predictions of the Governor of the Bank of England to back up all the other economic forecasts. But I am convinced that the problems which we shall face in

the future will not be mitigated or alleviated by a Government whose whole philosophy seems to be based upon confrontation. If the Government cannot change their ways, their style of leadership and the philosophy of their leader, perhaps a General Election would be the best thing that could happen. The Government could then make way for a Government who were prepared to unite the country and solve the problems in that way, rather than exacerbate regional differences and class prejudices as the present Government seem determined to do.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My constituents are as much affected by the three-day working week as those of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies). But no one in any part of this country would be more catastro-phically affected by the collapse of the phase 3 policy, if that were to occur, than those who live in my constituency, most of whom do not have the protection of great unions but are engaged in small businesses, in farming or in tourism. Many of my constituents are retired people living on fixed incomes. The hon. Member called for a massive injection of funds into the coal industry, but he seems to have forgotten that the present Government have already introduced an Act with exactly that objective.
I understand that during an earlier part of the debate comment was made about my absence from the Chamber. There were two reasons for my absence. Partly, I was driven away after I had listened to the greater part of an excruciatingly boring speech by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride). But also, more importantly, I was visiting my wife, who has just undergone a serious operation and is in hospital. If we are to have a General Election, I hope that it will not be characteristic of the tactics of the Labour Party to attack a Member of Parliament for his absence on such a duty. One notices, too, that many of the hon. Members who chose to attack me at 8.30 p.m. for not being present are not in the Chamber when the going gets a little rougher at 11.45 p.m.
I want to refer to one or two of the problems that confront my constituents in West Wales. There have already been a number of references to housing. This


deeply concerns me because there are great housing shortages in Pembrokeshire, and local authorities have failed, in some cases seriously, to meet the challenge that they face. There was a sad failure to build houses in the Haverfordwest borough and rural district because it was believed that houses would become available in Brawdy. I thought that that was a great mistake, but it has happened.
I regret that the local authorities have not taken up the repeated invitation that I have extended, and the invitation extended by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, for them to meet the Minister of State in order to discuss any particular problems they may have about conditions in which they have to operate. That invitation was extended on more than one occasion from the Dispatch Box, and it would have been valuable if the local authorities had taken it up. There are a considerable number of empty houses in Pembroke Dock awaiting a decision about the future of Manorbier and Castlemartin, and I hope it will not be long before they are released.
May I make a passing reference to agriculture? I shall be brief because I do not want to keep other hon. Members from their speeches. There is great anxiety among milk producers in West Wales, as elsewhere. They have been faced with rapidly rising costs for feed-stuffs and so forth. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be able to assure me that the price review is being pressed on with all haste, that there will be an early announcement and that the farmers will receive an increase in the amount they receive for milk which I am sure they deserve. I shall not specify the exact amount because it is better that the details should be put forward by the unions in the current discussions.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Member has honestly and forcefully put the case for the milk producers recouping their costs. Does lie agree with the contention that the Government should be condemned if they suggest that the limit of 1·6p a gallon set by the EEC on the amount that can be awarded to the farmers should be enforced?

Mr. Edwards: I am not prepared to answer hypothetical questions. We can discuss that point when it arises. It will probably prove to be one of the many myths perpetrated by the Opposition.
Communications remain as crucially important for the area as ever. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us some reassurance about progress on the M4 and tell us what will be the effect, if any—I hope there will be none—of the cuts in road expenditure on the construction of that road. Any delay is much more likely to be caused by planning problems, and I hope he will tell us that progress is being made on that front, too. A good deal of minor road works is going on in the area which for the time being could be dispensed with. For example, the road from Fishguard to St. Davids and the road from Haverfordwest to St. Davids are both important highways—not least because I use them regularly—but it is not essential to straighten out every bend. I am far more anxious about construction of the main arterial links which are essential for our industrial life than I am about that sort of expenditure.
I welcome steps being taken—the legislation is currently going through Parliament—to make it easier for the rural areas to provide transport by mini-bus, private car and so on. That is vitally important.
Nothing has caused greater anxiety in the area than the provision of adequate hospital services. The problem has concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am delighted to see the work going briskly forward at last on the construction of the new district general hospital at Haverfordwest. But there are two points of particular concern to my constituents.
First, we are not yet satisfied that it will be possible to run the accident unit with the comprehensiveness and efficiency that we would like. Senior appointments have been made, but it has not yet been proved that the proposals put forward can be sucessfully implemented, and that necessary assistant staff can be recruited. We shall continue to watch this sector of the hospital service with acute and critical attention.
Even more important is that we should have an adequate number of children's beds. I very much welcome the appointment of the new paediatrician who will live in the area. It is a great step forward, but it is not enough if he does not have enough beds in which to treat the children. I am satisfied that the present plans for the hospital do not include enough beds. I hope that the plans will soon be amended.
I turn to employment and industrial development prospects in my constituency. We have had three very good years, notably better than the three that went before. But I acknowledge that we have had the advantage of major construction projects involving oil refineries. Unemployment rates have been rising again towards those we found when the present Government came to power, but there are encouraging prospects if we can overcome the present industrial difficulties.
First, there are significantly more people in employment in the area than there were even two or three years ago. It is difficult to arrive at the exact numbers, because there has been a change in the method of calculation from one based on the old card count to a census, and there are extraordinary anomalies. It would appear that there were about 4,000 more males in employment in my constituency in June 1972 than there were a year or two before. I do not think that is right, but it is clear that there are probably about 2,000 more, and that is a significant increase.
The second encouraging factor is the developments that have taken place—the development of the rail and shipping facilities at Fishguard, the new factory, the Slimma factory, that has opened there, the reopening of one of the factories at Pembroke Dock and the reopening of Brawdy which will occur in a few months' time. All these developments offer new prospects for employment.
On top of that, we have the guarantee given by the Government, after I had intervened to achieve it, that the naval establishment at Pembroke Dock will be continued at least until other employment is provided. I am told that, following the decision to keep the yard going, it has been operating so successfully that there is now every reason to keep it going for

purely naval reasons. The people responsible deserve congratulation.
The other and most important single encouraging factor for us in the area is the developments in connection with Celtic Sea oil. It is likely that Pembrokeshire will provide the base for at least five rigs during the coming drilling season and that we shall be a hive of activity. There will also be some shipbuilding, the first major shipbuilding development in the county for many years, because through the enterprise of the Hancock yard it looks as if we shall be constructing two or even four supply vessels for offshore work.
The Government have played their part in ensuring that these facilities will come to Pembrokeshire and to Wales in general. I am grateful for the co-operation which was received after I intervened to ensure that the naval jetty was made available. That was essential if we were to get oil operations out of Pembroke.
It will continue to be vital for the Welsh Office to play a full part, with the new Department of Energy, in preparing the infrastructure and services that will be needed. There is only one threat which is hanging over such bright prospects. That threat arises from last week's declaration by the Labour Party, which is one of sombre significance for Pembrokeshire, that it will nationalise the resources of the Celtic Sea and its related operations—for example, ship repairing, marine engineering and the ports.
We need urgent Government preparation of the infrastructure. We are threatened with action which will drive the oil companies away from Wales to Cork and to the Irish ports. What are needed are the Government grants that help to obtain shipbuilding orders, combined with local management enterprise, so that once again Pembrokeshire can become a shipbuilding centre. But that, too, is to be threatened by nationalisation. It appears that enterprising local businessmen are threatened with the possibility of becoming civil servants.
We need an IMEG report, or something similar, and a Welsh Council study of the industrial prospects, the communications requirements and the potential environmental problems. Instead, we now have a blight hanging over our bright prospects which could destroy our hopes.


A dark Socialist cloud now hangs over the bright future of West Wales.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am sure that the whole House would wish to sympathise with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) on the illness of his wife, and express the hope that she will make a quick recovery.
I do not pay attention to the politics of the attendance register. Sir Winston Churchill made the most interesting observation that it was the lowest form of political attack. Members who indulge in it do not, by and large, enjoy the respect of the House.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) started it.

Mr. Hooson: I shall not indulge in a parliamentary political squabble, save to say that the unhappy dilemma facing the electorate is how to get rid of the Prime Minister without installing the Leader of the Opposition in his place. That is an unhappy choice.

Mr. George Thomas: The electorate does not want to get your Leader.

Mr. Hooson: He is far better than your Leader.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)  rose——

Mr. Hooson: To put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, that may be purely academic. Who knows what is going on in Downing Street at this moment.
An important fact which concerns the whole of Wales is that the oil sheikhs have demonstrated to the world at large something which few people seem to recognise sufficiently—namely, that the balance of world economic power and the balance of national economic power have switched from the manufacturers to the prime producers. Because of world conditions the prime producers of oil, just like producers in coal mining and farming, are, in a totally different position from that which they occupied a year or two ago. Our thinking has not kept pace with world developments and with the effect of those developments on the internal economic structure of this country.
It appears to me that on the Government benches only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has shown any appreciation of this additional factor, which one would have thought should have greatly affected the Government approach to the present crisis.
Agriculture is the major industry of Mid-Wales and to a large extent, of South-West Wales, also. Grave miscalculations have been made by the Government in the handling of the agriculture industry. We have the Minister of Agriculture, who has joint responsibility with the Secretary of State, presenting across-the-board figures for agriculture which infuriate the Welsh dairy and livestock farmer.
Grain prices have increased enormously and grain farmers have done well, but the concurrent effect is that dairy and livestock farmers, who have to buy feeding stuffs, have been at the receiving end. They have to pay more than Common Market prices for the feed, while receiving nothing like Common Market prices in return.
The true situation, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your own rural constituency, will be aware, is that many livestock farmers have been suffering in a way of which the general public has been completely unaware.
Allied to this effect of the high feeding cost is the high interest rate. Added to that, the market has been flooded with cows which should have been kept for breeding.
One reason for the depressed market for barren cows and beef is that people are uncertain about the future, whereas the true world situation, the increase in transport costs, and the fall of the pound should impel the country to grow more food to ensure far more of our breeding stock for the future.
I have forecast that this country is facing a grave food shortage, and the Secretary of State would be well advised to pay attention to the agricultural distress which exists in many areas and regions today.
Many small farmers do not know what the future holds for them. I saw the other day that the President of the National Farmers' Union forecast large


numbers of bankruptcies unless something was done. He was clearly referring not to grain growing but to the livestock section. I wonder what the Secretary of State will say about that. What is intended to be done on behalf of the farmer?
In connection with the Common Market, I do not think the Government should be inhibited in any way in modifying the common agricultural policy internally.
The economic reasons for entering the Common Market are at least less tenable than they were when we entered. The political reasons for the unity of Europe may be great, but the economic reasons for entry have weakened, and that is the true instinct of the whole country. Therefore, in assessing whether the Government can break or modify the inhibitions placed on them by the Common Market agreement, they should bear in mind that the countries of the Common Market have in the past frequently done that very thing.
The second point I want to make is this. In Mid-Wales and South-West Wales we suffer woefully from bad communications. At the same time the whole system of local government is being centralised. We have no assurance about the future of our railway lines ; bus services have virtually disappeared. Except by private car, it is almost impossible for a citizen to serve on a council in the new set-up in the area. The Secretary of State owes it to the people of that area to have an investigation of what public transport facilities are, and ought to be, available to ensure that there will be no more closures and that there will be adequate subsidies to provide adequate public transport.
My third and last point is this. One of the undoubted economic successes in my area has been the development of Newtown new town. I was always, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) remembers, against the idea of a population of 80,000 for Newtown, Montgomeryshire. I much preferred the idea, for which the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) settled, of increasing the Newtown population to about 10,000 or 11,000. That would have been much more acceptable.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Although the hon. and learned Member was against the idea of a Newtown of 80,000 on the plains of Montgomeryshire, I do not remember his voicing any objection at all to increasing the population of Aberystwyth to 150,000. There was published a statement by him several years ago about it.

Mr. Hooson: It was a complete misrepresentation, as the hon. Member knows. There was a suggestion that Aberystwyth should be gradually increased, eventually to become, possibly by the turn of the century, the focal point, as it were, of Mid-Wales. Why the hon. Member should object to that I do not know. I understood that he had reservations about the Newtown proposals, and the bringing in of overspill population. I am sure he approved of my opposition to that plan.
I would have thought the hon. Member would have supported my view, which I have always taken, that the Newtown Development Corporation should not have been limited to one town. I have always firmly believed that the corporation should have power to develop all existing towns in Mid-Wales. We do not want in our area, which is largely agricultural, the small industrial towns to be developed out of all proportion to others. We would much prefer to develop Rhayader, Dolgelley, and others, so that people would not have to travel from those towns to find work in Newtown. All the towns in the area should be developed.
I would have thought, with the enormous increase in fuel costs, and the transformation of our society which will come about because of world and national pressures upon us, the correctness of my view in this matter to have been amply borne out, and I hope that the Secretary of State will have something to say about it.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) on attaining his place in the ballot so that we can have this debate on the important matter of the problems of Mid-Wales and South-West Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) inquired of the hon. and learned Member for


Montgomeryshire (Mr. Hooson) as to Liberal policy of a few years ago. There is no need to inquire any more of the hon. and learned Member about that, for he apparently believes in a coalition Government under the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and not his own leader.
The question of the problems of Mid-Wales and South-West Wales are important ; they are also many. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) tried to disguise many of them. As he has personal family problems, I do not wish to concentrate too much on his speech, but to make a "passing" reference to agriculture in one of the leading agricultural constituencies in Britain was not doing justice to the people who sent him here. Perhaps, when the Government decide to call a General Election, we can deal with this matter in our own way in South-West Wales in the coming months.
South-West Wales is going through a period of confusion and bewilderment. The Government have built up the feeling of a crisis and then told us that there was not one, just as we were told to expect a tough Budget and then in December we got nothing of the kind. The Government's record in South-West Wales clearly shows the reason for this bewilderment and disillusionment. The hon. Member for Pembroke talked of the hopes for the future in terms of hospitals, roads and infrastructure in South-West Wales and Mid-Wales. By reducing public expenditure by £1,200 million with cuts on health and hospital and school building, the Government are not exactly investing in the future of areas like this. This uncertaintly also exists in coal mining and agricultural areas. There is great concern about where the Government are taking this country and our region in particular.
The other day I spent about four hours down Cwmgwili Pit, a few hundred yards inside the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. While there, I thought of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts), whom I have heard more than once on television or the radio talking about terrible plots being laid against the Government and the people by militant miners or their leaders. I thought that if he had come with me he would be much more careful

about what he says. The people to whom he was referring are ordinary people who have lived ordinary lives in the ordinary valleys of Carmarthenshire and elsewhere, who have nothing of the sort in mind, and want only to make a decent living and give of their best for the country as they have done for decades.
Something sudden happened to another Conservative Member in Wales a few years ago when he tried scaremongering about the miners. He departed from the House soon afterwards. I will not say that automatically happens, but there are people down the pits earning £27, £29, £31, £33 and £36 a week. Four hours was enough for me to be down Cwmgwili colliery to realise that that sort of money is woefully inadequate for the work done.
The Prime Minister at the moment thinks that he might have an alibi for the mess the country is in, but there is a great deal of explaining to do about how the Government miscalculated the energy crisis, whose coming has been obvious for months to everyone. The tragedy is that the alibi now is taking our total concentration away from the Government's economic mismanagement.
I utter a word of warning on the Celtic Sea oil development. There are people in Wales who have made this a political platform because it seems they have nothing else to talk about. The finds, if they occur, may not be anywhere near the Pembrokeshire coast. Indeed, by 1985 it might be Cornish oil rather than Welsh oil.
The hon. Member for Pembroke said that the Government needed to think of the infrastructure and planning requirements, and I agree with him. The CBI has conducted a study into the needs of South-West Wales. The industrial development committee of the Carmarthenshire County Council has written to the Secretary of State asking him to convene a standing conference into the needs of South-West Wales so that we may avoid the pitfalls that have occurred in Aberdeen through bad planning. Aberdeen has a population of 180,000. The Milford Haven and Pembroke dock area is far smaller, so the problems will probably be much greater. The infrastructure must be considered, and the advantages for South-West Wales should come further east than Pembrokeshire.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I entirely agree. It is absurd to talk about Welsh oil when the first hole that was drilled was near the Isles of Scilly. We can provide the base. We want to be the advance base, but the main industrial development will spread right back through South Wales. I agree that we need the kind of planning conference that the hon. Gentleman asked for.

Mr. Jones: I raise the question of Welsh oil because of its immense possibilities for the Welsh economy. There are people who say that Wales has certain energy advantages. I remind those people that we get all our gas from the North Sea, and we shall have to get a great deal of oil from the North Sea for Welsh industry. Half a million houses in Wales get their natural gas from the North Sea. Wales certainly has coal, but the geological conditions make the mining of coal difficult.
I want to ask the Minister about the M4 motorway. A 1976 deadline has been promised by the Secretary of State for the Pontardulais bypass, but, again, the deadline is being pushed further into the future. If the road is not ready by that date future development in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire will be pushed into the 1980s.
When the report on the railways is published, will it contain a section dealing specifically with Wales? The Welsh Council study will take another year before it reaches fruition. Will there be, in the Government's overall strategy, a major policy dealing with infrastructure and transport problems in the Principality? What plans have the Government got, albeit may be in the last few days of this Parliament, to co-ordinate the industrial, agricultural and tourist potential and to deal with the whole environment of Mid-Wales?
There was once a proposal by the Labour Government for some sort of body for Mid-Wales. That did not reach fruition. The Government dismantled the plans, yet three years afterwards there is still nothing of note offered as an alternative.
In the agricultural industry the increase in feeding stuffs has borne particularly heavily upon milk producers. It has badly affected poultry and pig producers, too. Carmarthenshire is one of the top three agricultural constituencies

in Britain, producing 70 million gallons of milk a year and about £8–£10 million for the economy of the county. Yet it is going through a period when feeding stuffs have increased by 80–90 per cent. a ton. This is serious for milk producers who were not fully recouped in the 1973 review. It was hoped that four factors would help the dairy farmer—an increase in calf prices, a decline in feeding stuff prices, a continuation of the advancing milk yield and a rise in the price of calving cows. None of these factors has turned out as hoped. The industry is now crying out for assistance.
The special review procedure has been dismantled. This procedure operated until we joined the EEC. The Government have to begin convincing dairy and hill farmers in Wales of the advantages of joining the Community. From my personal knowledge and contact with farmers in my constituency, I know that they are not enamoured of the prospects at the moment. They are still looking for the advantages. They are paying today for 1977 EEC costs. Expansion is imperilled. There has been a major drop in the milk yield. Confidence is at a low ebb.
There are many other problems facing this area. The last occasion on which I spoke in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate I took 55 minutes. Mr. Speaker was not too pleased and did not call me for a while afterwards. I will not repeat that performance tonight. If I spoke for much longer the Prime Minister might have called a General Election and I would have to rush off to my constituency to make sure that the truth about the Government's policies towards the Principality and South-West Wales is known. We will not forget that the heart of the crisis—although we are currently concerned about the energy problem—lies in the blatant mismanagement of the economy for the past three years—from the days in October 1970 when public expenditure was reduced, and then increased by £900 million in 1971, then by £1,400 million in 1972 and then cut by £1,200 million today. We also had the cutting of investment plans in 1970, their restoration in 1972 and all the U-turns and so on.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Gentleman might care to go back to the mismanagement of six years earlier.

Mr. Jones: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of an important factor to which I intended to draw attention. The Labour administration brought this country back to a balance of payments surplus of £1,000 million. People are now asking where it has all gone and why it has been frittered away.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Caerwyn Roderick: We sympathise with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards). However, we do not sympathise very much with what he said. He spoke about the danger of the collapse of phase 3 and said that no one would suffer more than the people of South-West Wales and Mid-Wales if it were to collapse. I suggest that phase 3 has collapsed. It is not about to collapse. It has led to a three-day week. If that was not the intention of phase 3, it is a remarkable result of such a policy.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he had not spent some time in mining areas, it would pay him to do so now so that he might understand what the miners are trying to tell his Leader and his Government. They are saying "If you want coal, either you must get it for yourselves or you must pay us for getting it." They have had just about enough of getting it on the cheap, as they have been. When they see brand new factories round them where they can get clean jobs with very good pay, they will no longer go down to do the abominable jobs that they have done throughout the years to get coal on the cheap. The Prime Minister had better decide that this is the situation. He cannot bargain with them as he has been doing.
The hon. Member for Pembroke also mentioned livestock feeding stuffs. The farmers in my constituency have not yet forgotten the phrase used constantly that they must now live off the fat. It was used by two Ministers. It was suggested that they had had a sunny period for a long time and that now they had to tighten their belts and live off the fat. Last year's price review was based on the expectation that we should have falling prices of livestock feeding stuffs. These have not come about. The farmers now expect a correction to be made.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke about

what was happening in the markets. He said that recently there had been a deliberate off-loading of cows because of the lack of confidence among farmers about the future of the beef and dairy cattle industry. He told us about their fears of what was ahead of them, with the result that they had decided that they could no longer afford to hang on.
Last week in a market in my constituency beef was fetching £11 or £12 per cwt" whereas six months ago it had been £21. The drop in price has been remarkable.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The farmers are also asking why the price to the housewife has not declined. When beef prices were at a disadvantageously high level, the Government instituted an inquiry. They have not instituted a similar inquiry into why the price of beef to the housewife has not dropped. Someone is profiteering.

Mr. Roderick: I do not pretend to know the answer to that question. I was discussing that very problem with farmers in my constituency on Monday evening. They could not provide an explanation for this remarkable drop in the price of beef, apart from the fact that there was a lack of confidence, and this off-loading was one suggestion being made.
I turn now to another aspect of agriculture—the shortage of various materials. There is a shortage of fertilisers and of packaging. We know that there is a shortage of packaging materials in other industries, and there is certainly a shortage of spare parts for machinery.
Some of these shortages do not arise by accident. Two years ago we warned the Government that if we were in the doldrums in production, nevertheless they should not allow the preparations for better days to go unattended but should ensure the production of certain raw materials for better times.
Any economist knows that, whichever party is in Government, there are ups and downs in the economy of this country. They go in cycles. We tried to ensure that the downs were not as low as this Government have reached. We tried to level them out. Nevertheless, the graphs of the gross national product show that production goes in cycles. In the lower part of the cycle the Government would not take heed of the warnings that


they should have been preparing for better times.
There is now a better employment situation. This would have happened regardless of which party was in power, but we can accelerate that process. Now that we are reaching those better times we are totally unprepared. We are short of materials in every walk of life.
In an earlier debate about improvement grants reference was made to builders complaining that they could not get on with jobs because the raw materials were not available. I am aware of this problem in my constituency and in many other parts of Wales. Builders cannot get plaster board and various other essential building materials. I blame the Government for not being prepared for this contingency.
The problems of Mid-Wales have not changed or been eased in the past three and a half years. We have had three and a half years of talk by the Secretary of State about a growth towns policy. It has been talk, and nothing but talk, because he has done nothing to bring about a programme of massive investment in these growth towns.
I have been very fortunate in the past week because a friend passed to me a pamphlet which was issued by a Conservative candidate in my constituency during the last election. I should like to quote one sentence from it.

Mr. George Thomas: I understand that the gentleman concerned is to be my opponent.

Mr. Roderick: He will be very fortunate in having my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) as his opponent, for perhaps his education will be further advanced. In this pamphlet he says:
Plans for strengthening Mid-Wales towns will be supported.
I am sure that my hon. Friends would be delighted to hear about such plans. That was in 1970. We have heard nothing further. Newtown has gone ahead, but that has come to a halt. We are happy that it should have reached this stage, but it is time that we moved on to other towns. The Secretary of State has talked endlessly about the growth towns policy, but nothing is happening.
In Mid-Wales a depressed area has been set up. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the level of average wages in that area. I am told that the average wage in Mid-Wales at present is £1,280 a year. The average wage in the crofting counties in Scotland is £1,341 a year. The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have succeeded in getting a better average wage for the crofters of Scotland than is enjoyed by the people in Mid-Wales. The average wage for the United Kingdom is £1,548 a year, which means that there is a difference of about £250 between that figure and the figure for Wales. People in my area are expected to live on £250 a year less than the national average. Is that because it is thought they can live more cheaply? In fact, the reverse is the case, and their expenses can be much higher than those of people living in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Ever since they took office the Government have been throwing on to local authorities more of the burden of collecting their own income. For instance, this week the new Welsh National Water Development Authority has suggested that people will have to pay three or four times as much in water charges as hitherto. Is that why the authority was set up? I understand that the reason for the suggested increase is that the Government are withdrawing their support from water rates and are asking the authority to charge a realistic price for water. There is an abundance of water in Mid-Wales—and this is an amenity shared by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—yet the people there will have to find this extra money.
We have been waiting since 12th December for the White Paper giving the result of negotiations on the rate support grant. At a meeting in London last week we were told by the Minister for Local Government and Development that it would appear within a matter of a few days, but a week has gone by and nothing has happened. We know that there have been revisions during the negotiations, but the original negotiations led us to believe that Mid-Wales would suffer to the extent of having to bear a 60 per cent. increase in the rate burden.
The Secretary of State has often said that we are exaggerating and that we


have not got the facts right, but how can we know the true position without the facts? It is high time that we learned the truth. If the Secretary of State has been deceiving us all along the road, he will have a sorry tale to tell when the figures are published. In addition to withdrawing the rate support grant, we are to suffer the Government cuts in expenditure that were announced in December, and all these things add to the burdens of the people in rural Mid-Wales.
I should now like to touch briefly on the question of transport in the area. I do not see much change in the pattern of public transport in Mid-Wales, and I should like to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to another statement in this magnificent document with which I have been presented. It says:
The Socialist Government has failed to control the cost of living."—
What a joke that is.
Communities such as ours"—
that is in Mid-Wales—
which are so dependent on motor transport have been worst hit. A Conservative Administration will tackle this problem. It needs to be tackled and only we can do it.
Before giving that quotation I said that I had not noticed much change in the pattern of public transport in the area, but I have noticed one change, and that is that recently the prices of oil and petrol have increased considerably. The Secretary of State will no doubt say that that is not the Government's fault and that it is the Arabs who are to blame, and they blame world prices for increases in our foodstuffs, but they could if they wished intervene to keep down prices here. Instead, they are dogmatically opposed to providing subsidies. The Prime Minister is extremely stubborn about so many things, and that is another aspect of the Government's unwillingness to recognise that they could help to make life easier for people. Most people in Mid-Wales travel considerable distances to work, and petrol and oil are major factors in their lives. The Government could do a great deal to alleviate the situation in this area.
We in Mid-Wales have suffered the closure of many of the facilities which led to an easing of life in the area. We have had the closure of gas showrooms, we have a lack of electricity showrooms

and we have the closure of sub-post offices. The Secretary of State might well argue that these have nothing to do with him and are the concern of those various public bodies. I suggest to him that if he is concerned in these matters he could well advise local authorities to take on a new rôle and let them have the power to assist in many ways in combining the work of all those public corporations in places where they cease to exist.
We have lately suffered postal deliveries and collections which are farcical under the new emergency timetable. In various rural parts we have the one collection of the day being made at 8 a.m. In those parts we have the added inconvenience of having the worst service in many respects.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), we in my constituency do not have much evidence of the European Economic Community's benefits to Mid-Wales. We thought that a magic wand would be waved and that last January things would change abruptly. A year later we have very little evidence of this. I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State will touch upon the benefits that we can now expect to accrue from our membership of the EEC. We are told that hill farmers can expect benefits, but they are nothing like the benefits we would have had under a Labour administration acting independently.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: We have had as spirited and wide-ranging a debate as we would have had if this had been a Welsh day. We are grateful to the benign fates that have made such a debate possible, although it is likely by now that there will be no further Welsh day in the lifetime of this Parliament.
I should like to follow up a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) and Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) as well as by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) concerning production costs, particularly in the context of milk production. It gives me no pleasure to remind farmers in my constituency that over the years it has been my case that a small increase in the end price would be greatly offset by


rising production costs that would very soon shoot through the ceiling. That has been what has happened during the last six months. The atmosphere in Mid-Wales among milk producers is one of fear and despondency.
It is clear that unless there is a massive recoupment, and unless the Government say to the powers which regulate such matters in the EEC that they will not be bound by any ceiling of an increase of l·6p per gallon, hundreds and, indeed, thousands of milk producers in Mid-Wales will be leaving the industry. They are in the main people who do not have the capital, the turnover or the size of units to enable them to convert to beef and still remain in agriculture. When that happens, not only will it be a blow to the great industry of agriculture, but it will sabotage a pattern of a way of life in the countryside, for agriculture is much more than an industry—it is a way of life.
I therefore urge the Secretary of State to use whatever influence he has in the Cabinet in the context of the coming price review to belabour the point that this loss cannot be allowed to continue without grave damage being done to Welsh agriculture and to the Government's whole policy of self-sufficiency in agriculture. We are not very far from the day when milk rationing may have to be introduced. When 1977 comes, bringing the end of the transitional period, it may be possible for more cheaply produced European milk to come to Britain, and we may then see thousands more milk producers driven out of the dairy industry.
While on the subject of milk production, I should like to introduce a topic not yet mentioned—the future of the Milk Marketing Board. The board has been a great security and a source of strength and certainty to farmers in Wales ever since it was established in the early '30s. The main source of the stability given by the board is that it is able to impose practically a uniform price for all milk producers, within the grades of milk produced, irrespective of where the market for that milk lies. If that were not so, Welsh milk producers, those such as mine in Cardiganshire who sell 75 per cent. of their milk outside the county, would find themselves facing a

heavy impost of several pence per gallon to cover transportation costs, and many would be driven out of the industry on that account.
For all the demands made by both sides of the House about this matter, the milk producers of Britain are still without a firm assurance from the Government about the future of the Milk Marketing Board as a powerful body with authority to impose a uniform price in this all-important sector.
I should like also to mention the subject of compensation payments to persons whose cattle are slaughtered under the compulsory eradication area brucellosis scheme. In my county we have now reached the high clearance figure of about 97 per cent. Cardiganshire is proud of having shown such a pioneering spirit in the eradication of tuberculosis many years ago and of being able to show such splendid progress in this direction, too.
But there are many instances of grave hardship. There are disputes, naturally enough, about compensation when persons have been receiving a bonus for brucella-free milk, but when they have been getting only 75 per cent. of the value of a slaughtered animal, I agree with them that there is no real reason why they should not be fully compensated on that account, for the difference of 25 per cent. is much greater than the benefit that they would have received, especially if they have received it for only a short period.
But the serious discontent is about the 60-day period when all the animals in a herd are slaughtered as actual reactors or dangerous contacts. The land must be kept completely free of cattle in the meantime, and there is no income for a substantial period. Then, at the end of that period of 60 days—or more, as it often is in practice—the farmer may find himself having to begin again with a process of building up a herd which in the first instance may have taken him as long as 30 years. It is quite wrong that such a person should be left completely uncompensated for that very serious loss.
I know that successive Governments have taken a tough line in relation to income loss in the context of slaughter, be it for foot-and-mouth disease, brucellosis or any other comparable animal


disease. Nevertheless, there is here a strong and compelling case for the payment of some form of disturbance grant for people who find themselves set back many years. Some of them, as I know from experience in my constituency, are completely ruined by the absence of such a payment.
I turn now to the general problems of Mid-Wales. Over the last two decades Mid-Wales has been the subject of a plethora of surveys. It is the best studied and most assiduously analysed part of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it remains the most extensive area of England and Wales which suffers rural depopulation in an acute form. All the evidence from these surveys points to exactly the same solution. That is that it is impossible to deal with each and every one of the problems of Mid-Wales as though they were separate factors wholly distinct and unconnected with each other. The solution lies only in giving some authoritative well-financed body a wide remit, with the power to look at the situation in its totality and to deal with all these various problems treating them as the different facets of one central situation.
That situation is one of a debilitated economy and an area that is steadily suffering from depopulation and a high rate of outward migration of its young people. There has been no dispute about the findings of successive surveys and the solutions which they have proposed, which have almost the same tenor and theme.
But that is exactly what the present Government refuse to do. They refuse to deal with the problems of Mid-Wales in a dynamic and comprehensive way. The only body which at present has a remit covering the totality of the situation is the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. When I say "the only body", I do not intend to refer to that splendid institution in a pejorative way. On the contrary, in the 16 years of its existence the association has been responsible for noble efforts and its work is truly distinguished. It has managed to found 75 new factories in Mid-Wales, it has created thousands of new jobs and it has been directly responsible for the attraction of well over £300 million of public investment to Mid-Wales.
I pay the highest tribute to the secretary of the association, Mr. Peter Garbett-Edwards, and to its chairman, Mr. Llefelys Davies. The association, however, has operated very much on a shoestring. From successive Governments it has received a paltry sum of a few thousand pounds per annum. No one would deny that that is the clearest example of a very successful public investment. I doubt whether there is any instance of Government expenditure showing so bountiful, direct and swift a return on a very small, modest investment.
For Mid-Wales the Labour administration which left office in 1970 relied substantially upon three policies. One was the general effect of the investment grant policy, which was of great relevance for many small firms in Mid-Wales. It provided them with substantial amounts of money to assist their cash flows in the first faltering months and years of their existence, and the benefit derived from such direct payments could not in any way be compared with the benefits which, perhaps in theoretical terms, may be calculated to derive from investment allowances. If these firms were making a roaring profit perhaps the two situations could be compared. But since most of them did not make a profit in the first uncertain years the benefits of investment grants were in a different universe from the investment allowances favoured by the Government.
The second policy was that of the growth towns. Six towns were designated in August 1969. When the Tory Government took over they said they would follow the same policy as their Labour predecessors. All that now exists is the dignity of designation. The grandiose title exists but there are few additional resources. The towns are, by the edict of Government, rich in status but scanty in wealth. The acid test of the Government's integrity in this matter can only be their willingness to divert substantial resources to these towns. They have had their chance, and they have not done so.
Aberystwyth is an example. It is the only town with a population of more than 10,000 in Mid-Wales. It is the largest town in my constituency. Under the Labour Government between 1966 and 1970 two advance factories were designated. The second was completed after Labour left office. Under the present Government


no advance factory has been built at Aberystwyth. An industrial estate of 60 acres has been purchased and all the services have been established by the local authorities concerned. It has taken a long time, and complicated problems have had to be overcome. I beg the Secretary of State to use his good offices now to make certain that a substantial pilot factory is established on that estate in order to give it every reasonable chance to succeed. Aberystwyth and the economy of North Cardiganshire and of Mid-Wales generally need such a development.
The area of Aberystwyth calls for a broadening of its economic base. A high percentage of the male and female jobs are in service industry and only a disproportionately small number derive their livelihood from manufacturing industry. For the whole of Cardiganshire the figure is only 9 per cent., and that is the lowest figure for any area in the United Kingdom.
The third policy relied upon by the Labour Government was that of establishing a rural development board in mid-Wales. This has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I do not want to cross swords with him yet again on this matter. We have had a number of clashes in the House. I have still not completely forgiven him for the attitude he took in those vicious years of 1969 and 1970. In mitigation it may be pleaded that at the time a vigorous political campaign was current in Wales. Undoubtedly many of the persons who so raucously and unreservedly condemned the establishment of the Rural Development Board at the time have had second thoughts. I will not embarrass them by naming them, but I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance——

Mr. Hooson: I should like the hon. Gentleman to name them.

Mr. Morgan: It would not be fair that matters given in confidence should be stated in public. Nor will I name the gentleman who had tea with me in the House in 1967, when the board was first mooted, and begged me to use my influence—God knows, it was very little—with the Ministers of the day to see that he was a member, and who within three months, when the list of members had

been published, was a leading detractor of the board. We will name no names, and thus avoid embarrassment all round.
I took the point made fairly by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the need to consider a body that would presumably incorporate all the functions of the Rural Development Board but would also have wide functions in relation to industry. I think that the board would have been better balanced if it had been constructed on that basis in the first instance. My own plea for a board of the type of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, established by the Labour Government in 1965, has been voiced in the House from the time I was elected in 1966.
If the hon and learned Gentleman now says that if the compulsory powers—powers which were in the 1965 Act in relation to the Highlands and Islands Development Board—were not included he would not object to the establishment of such a body in Wales——

Mr. Hooson: What Mid-Wales needs is an extension of the mandate of the New Town Development Corporation to develop the towns of Mid-Wales.

Mr. Morgan: I do not think that the benefits, extensive though they be, under the New Towns Act of 1965 should be limited to the towns. There are massive powers in that Act. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the Highland Development (Scotland) Act 1965 gives to rural areas in general the sort of assistance given to urban areas in the New Towns Act of the same year. Therefore, I do not think that there is any massive issue of principle dividing us.
The Government of the day could have been more subtle if they had established a board for the Pennines first. There would have been shrill cries of objection from the Welsh Liberal Party and self-righteous bawlings from the Welsh Nationalist Party, and then the Labour Government, with great magnanimity, would have conceded the point and established the Rural Development Board in Wales with no objection.
When the next Labour Government take office—we hope that it will be soon, but that depends very much on the Prime Minister's co-operation—I am confident that we shall see established


a board which will have the functions we have been talking about, the main functions of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, allowing substantial assistance to be given to urban as well as rural areas, to agriculture as well as industry. But I also believe that people's minds have been so poisoned by the miserable events of 1969 and 1970 that it would be politic not to include in the powers of such a body the compulsory powers which were the source of so much objection in 1969 and 1970. It was always my case that those powers were minuscule, so cabined, cramped and confined that it was unlikely that they would ever be used. I must follow the logic of my argument and say that if that is so, as I believe it to be, one can abandon them completely. It is on that basis that I should like to see established a development authority for the Welsh Countryside of Mid-Wales as well as for the towns.
We could talk at great length about the general problems of Mid-Wales but I appreciate the lateness of the hour and the fact that there are many debates still to come. In the face of all the possibilities, and against a background of everything that was attempted by the Labour Government and the blueprints that that Government left, the present Government have managed to achieve monumental inactivity.
I join with what has been said about Newtown. Some months ago I took the opportunity to visit it. I was greatly impressed. It is an aesthetic development. It has all the appearance of being a close, compact and dynamic community. I am glad to see it on that scale, but perhaps not for the same reason as that which was put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I believed that a town of 80,000 would have acted as a syphon upon dozens of small towns and villages in Mid-Wales and would have denuded them of the scarce resources which they already had.
The Government have failed completely to meet the main challenge of Mid-Wales. I grant that they have carried on the policy of their predecessors relating to Newtown and that Newtown is a success. I accept that the development of Newtown has been almost that which was projected by the planners three or four years ago, and

that there is every reason to believe that the development will continue unless there are some substantial and miserable supervening events in the general economy, which may be the case.
The Government have failed completely to apply their minds to how best to assist the western side of Mid-Wales. The real challenge is to assist the towns which are one hour's extra travelling time from the centres of the Midlands, which makes them almost completely unattractive. I refer to that half of Mid-Wales which will never really be serviced by a natural flow of resources from the Midlands. It is that challenge which the Government have sought to ignore.
The position will deteriorate rapidly. When reorganisation comes on 1st April the momentum of development which has been exercised by the local authorities will largely be lost. The position will be made worse by the substantial loss of rate support grant, the exact amount of which will undoubtedly be announced within the next few days. We must also remember that many authorities will lose the powers which were so important to them in attracting industry to their areas. They will become more like parish or community councils. With every respect to such bodies, they will not be in a position to attract industry directly.
We must also consider the three-day working week. There are few parts of the United Kingdom which will proportionately suffer so gravely as Mid-Wales in consequence of the Prime Minister's lunatic decision. The three-day week is unnecessary. We believe it stems from the Prime Minister's arrogance and pride. We believe that it is basically a form of medieval blood-letting to abstract from the economy the £2,000 million which he should have taken out by a fair and equitable Budget. That is the very thing the Government would not do. We believe that in the same way as a tree dies in the extremities of its branches, so it is exactly that sort of firm, the small firm in the outward periphery of Wales, which will suffer. It is here that we shall see the worst, most direct, and the first disastrous effects of the three-day working week.
We are disappointed that the Government have done nothing about the diversion of Government offices to Mid-Wales. We are disgusted that the Government


have seen fit that we should wait for a number of years for the Highlands and Islands Development Board type of development.
I should like to appeal to the Secretary of State to exercise his initiative, but the relevant decisions are not made at Gwydyr House, in the Welsh Department, but at the Treasury, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State openly admits. He is the puppet of the Treasury in this matter, but it is a grave injustice for Mid-Wales, and Mid-Wales will have to wait until a new Government, a Labour Government, have been established and then they will have the privilege to meet, in Mid-Wales, the challenge of the decay and malaise which have bedevilled that region for so many years.

1.12 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): All who have taken part in this debate will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) on his good fortune in the ballot for this important debate on Mid-Wales and South-West Wales. He did not make the best of his good fortune because he seized the opportunity to make a speech worthy of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He did not make a speech which highlighted the problems of South-West Wales or, indeed, pointed in any way to the situation there. He made a speech which was wholly divisive and designed to cause even greater problems for his area and for the nation generally.
The hon. Member referred to the coal miners in terms which we now hear so frequently from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I understand why he and his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), representing, as they do, people who work in the mines, and also being associated, as I know the hon. Member for Carmarthen has been, with people connected with the coal mines, make speeches which demonstrate their affection for people who work in the industry. However, it comes ill from any of the hon. Members opposite today, at a time of crisis in the nation, to strike the attitude they are striking now.
Who would think, to listen to the speeches from the hon. Member for Llanelly, that he belongs to a party which closed dozens of coal mines? Who would think that he belongs to a party by which tens of thousands of miners were made unemployed when his Government were in office? All the matters he mentioned were divisive. He did not mention that this Government in the last three and a half years have passed a Coal Industry Act, an Act which is acclaimed by all objective people interested in the mines. He did not mention that it is an Act which reverses the policy of running down the coal mining industry. He did not mention that it is an Act which gave an extra £100 million for redundant miners. He did not mention that it is an Act which increased the contribution to miners' pensions by £40 million, or that it is an Act which provided a regional grant of up to £210 million to be spent on uneconomic coal mines.
There is no doubt that miners have to work hard. There is no doubt that miners work in a situation which is hazardous to health and to body. Nevertheless, I remind hon. Members of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in a debate the other day, that what is said by hon. and right hon. Members opposite is humbug when they passionately argue today how under-paid miners are compared with other sections of the community.
When we took office three and a half years ago the earnings and allowances of face workers in the mines, still working hard and running risks, as they do, were £25 a week ; pay and allowances of the surface workers were less than £21·50. The improvement in the six years of the Labour Government, having taken into account the cost of living, was far less for the miners than it has been in the last three and a half years. In six years of Labour Government the earnings of face workers rose by £4 a week. In the past three and a half years the earnings have risen by £13. If Members of the Labour Party were able today to talk of a record such as that, if they could talk about a Coal Industry Act—which they did not bring in—if they could talk about this improvement in miners' pay, they would be talking of an achievement worth proclaiming. Instead, they have talked of nothing but divisive points.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider it strange that a Government willing to pay out to the coal industry and miners and retired miners a totality of hundreds of millions of pounds under the Coal Industry Act should now burke at a settlement which would mean only 2p extra per hundredweight of coal and that they are willing to plunge the whole country into chaos in withstanding a claim of that nature?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the matter at stake is the whole of the counter-inflationary policy. He knows perfectly well that the offer which has been made to the miners is the best offer that has ever been made to them in negotiations. He knows perfectly well that it is the intention of the Government to get down to discussing the future with the miners because it is important that their future should be assured. He knows perfectly well, too, that if the miners were to break through the counter-inflationary policy the effect on the country would be disastrous. Therefore, I do not accept what he says as being any solution whatsoever to the problems we face today and, in particular, to the problems of vulnerable areas such as Wales.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I accept that the miners have had an increase since 1970, but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the last major increase they had was as a result of industrial action and the Wilberforce inquiry, and that it was not an increase given by the Government graciously, but forced out of them? Would he not agree that the next increase they will get will be, again, as a result of their action, forcing it out?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I can understand what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—that the only way one can gain what one wants is by industrial action. He has forgotten the miners' settlement in stage 2, and that the Wilberforce award, was one which the Government accepted, having set up Wilberforce. Their present agreement does not come to an end until March. The hon. Member seems to think it right that there should be industrial action at the moment—because it is industrial action—the effect of which is the three-day working week of which he is complaining and

which he says is the one major problem in his constituency. That three-day week could come to an end if the industrial action ceased, and those people in his constituency who have been working in a situation better than they have ever known—the lowest unemployment for years—would be able to return to normal working.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) said "The problems of Mid-Wales have not been changed at all in the three and a half years." That, of course, is a gross exaggeration——

Mr. Roderick: I did not say that.

Mr. Peter Thomas: For Mid-Wales, South-West Wales and, indeed, other parts of the Principality, 1973 was a year of notable and encouraging development. Considerable progress was made in strengthening and diversifying the economies of both these areas. There were real signs that the fundamental and longstanding problems of unemployment and rural depopulation were at last being overcome. An air of confidence was apparent throughout almost the whole of the area. The employment situation in Llanelli had been transformed ; Pembrokeshire looked forward expectantly to the exploration of the Celtic Sea ; Newtown was actively building up its population and industry ; and the foundations had been laid for the further development of the other growth towns in Mid-Wales.
The difficulties we now face as a nation will inevitably mean some loss of momentum in this part of Wales, as elsewhere. There is no getting away from that. But if we can solve—as I hope we can—these immediate difficulties, there is every hope for the continued growth and development of these areas of Wales. The year 1973 proved what can be done.
It is interesting that, when referring to these parts of Wales, one has always referred to the areas of depopulation. There has been a significant improvement in that situation in Mid-Wales. After many decades of depopulation, the five counties of Mid-Wales are now again experiencing an increase in the number of their inhabitants. The rate of population loss in the decade 1951–61 was 3·4 per cent. Over the following 10-year period, the rate dropped to 2·3 per cent.
Recent figures indicate a continuation of this pattern of improvement. Indeed, they show that between mid-1971 and mid-1973 the population of the five counties of Mid-Wales actually rose by 2,100, or 1 per cent. The natural change was still negative, but this was more than counterbalanced by a net change of nearly 2,900 in other components, primarily migration. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor does not like these figures, I hope that others do. They demonstrate that for the first time in years there has been a net inward migration in Wales, in particular in his constituency. From being in a position where net outward migration was running at 500 a year between 1961 and 1971, Mid-Wales has now reached a position of net inward migration—1,200 between 1971 and 1972 and 1,600 last year.

Mr. Roderick: I should like to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back a little way in his speech. He quoted me as saying that the problems of Mid-Wales have not changed and that nothing has been done. That is not what I said. I said that the problems have not changed. I did not say that nothing had been done. How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman compare the increase in population in Wales with the national increase in population?

Mr. Peter Thomas: That is rather a bad point, because we are dealing here with an area that has suffered depopulation. When there is a reverse in that trend so that for the first time there is a net inward migration, that is to be welcomed. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that and does not welcome it, he is not interested in the area he represents.
I took down what the hon. Gentleman said, and if he looks it up tomorrow he will see that he said that the problems of Mid-Wales have not been changed at all in the three-and-a-half years. He said that there had been lots of talk about growth towns but nothing had been done. He said that nothing was happening. That gives me the opportunity to say something more about what is happening in the growth towns.
I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the trend I have mentioned is an

encouraging one because, with one exception, the designated growth towns all experienced an increase in population between 1961 and 1971. In Newtown that amounted to 10·8 per cent., in Welshpool to 11·4 per cent. and in Brecon to 9·3 per cent. Over the past two years the population of all the growth towns, without exception, has increased. Industrial development, too, has proceeded at a most encouraging rate, and factory projects promising well over 2,000 jobs have been approved in the growth towns in the last seven years.
The hon. Members for Carmarthen and Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) both mentioned proposals akin to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. There is now a considerable body of evidence that existing policies, which have been accepted and carried on from the previous administration in large part, are both appropriate and successful. Therefore, I believe that we must approach the question of new policy initiatives in Mid-Wales with great care.
The Welsh Council published last year a report on the growth town programme which was the outcome of a very detailed and comprehensive study. The Council took the view that the case for establishing a body on the lines of the Highlands and Islands Development Board for Mid-Wales could not then be made out. This judgment was based on its assessment of the problems of Mid-Wales, its view of the effectiveness of our present policies and the knowledge it gained of the work of the Highlands board from visiting Northern Scotland. It was a considered judgment and one which should not lightly be set aside. For my part I agree with the council that a case cannot be made out at present for establishing such a body.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: May I put, in as non-controversial a way as possible, the point that the judgment of the Welsh Council that there was no need to establish a Highlands board type of body in Wales seems to have been based on the consideration that the assistance channelled to Northern Scotland by the board was in many cases either channelled or capable of being channelled through agencies which already existed in Mid-Wales? This was a fundamental mistake, because the council failed to observe an


element which has been the basis of the studies made of Mid-Wales over the last 20 years ; namely, the absolute need for a body with comprehensive powers to deal as one entity with all these problems at the same time.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that the view of the Welsh Council is debatable. I understand that the hon. Member holds a contrary view, which he has expressed forcibly and effectively. The Welsh Council has gone into the matter with considerable care, and it seems that this is a considered judgment which must not be set aside lightly. For my part, I feel that a case cannot at present be made out for establishing such a body. I am not saying that in certain circumstances a case could not be made out.
The Welsh Council also considered very carefully a proposal, frequently made, that the Mid-Wales (Newtown) Development Corporation should take over responsibility for the development of other growth towns in the area. I have repeatedly made clear my view that the corporation's first task is to ensure the success of Newtown. The corporation has unquestionably achieved a great deal. Newtown has an air of prosperity and confidence that is apparent to everyone who visits the town. Unemployment there was running at only 1·7 per cent. in December.
But it is not altogether easy to establish the measure of that success in quantitative terms. Because of the difficulty of determining with any degree of precision exactly how the population is changing in a comparatively small area, I have taken up the Welsh Council's suggestion that a special survey should be undertaken of the population of Newtown and the surrounding areas at the end of 1973. The field work involved in this study has been completed. The analysis will also be completed very soon. In the light of our findings we shall be in a position to judge much more accurately the progress that has been made in the Newtown area in terms of population growth.
I must again emphasise, however, something I have said many times. Population change is only one factor among many which need to be considered before a firm judgment is reached on what has been achieved in Newtown in relation to the resources that have been committed.
The question of an extended remit for the Mid-Wales (Newtown) Development Corporation must, of course, be looked at in the context of the major reorganisation of local government that will take effect in April. We must think very carefully before setting up new arrangements for the development of Mid-Wales that do not give the new local authorities an opportunity to exercise their vigour and imagination in this vitally important area.
No Government can solve the problems of Mid-Wales without the active support of the people and the elected representatives of the people of Mid-Wales. In my view, it would be wrong to deny the new local authorities an opportunity of participating in this work. That is one important factor which I must take account of when I am considering the responsibilities of the Mid-Wales (Newtown) Development Corporation.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not reply to many of the matters raised in the debate. However, I wish to refer to some of the factory building which is taking place. Much has been achieved here. But a lot remains to be done. Some six months ago I announced an intensification of the Government's factory building and related activities in Mid-Wales. The development commission has contributed substantially to this.
Since this Government took office in June 1970 we have authorised the construction of 27 new factories or nursery units in Mid-Wales. But factory building on its own is not enough. Housing is another important matter. With this in mind, the development commission is expanding its scheme of guaranteeing the rental of houses built by local authorities. This scheme diminishes the risk which a local authority otherwise would have to face in building houses in the growth towns.
The intensification of our existing policies towards Mid-Wales which I announced a few months ago is essentially a matter of reinforcing success. The growth towns are now in a position where their development can be accelerated. This development can be helped from time to time by the decision of non-manufacturing units to move to Mid-Wales. In this connection I welcome, as I am sure do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the


decision of the Welsh National Water Development Authority to locate its headquarters in Brecon. This decision will mean a very welcome addition of employment—and diverse employment—in that town.
Turning now to South-West Wales, the picture again is one of progress. I referred earlier to the encouraging population figures for Mid-Wales. The same significant trends are apparent in Southwest Wales. Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire together had annual net outward migration of about 400 a year in the 1960s. In contrast, they experienced net inward migration of 700 in 1971–72 and 1,400 last year.
The Lanelli area is unquestionably one of the success stories of regional policy. Not so many years ago this part of Carmarthenshire was in the throes of a major restructuring of its industries. Having been Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour at the time, I remember it well. The old hand tinplate mills have now gone, and in their place there are modern factories employing many thousands of people.
From a position of disturbingly high unemployment, Llanelly has moved to the point where its unemployment rate is not only well below the Welsh average but substantially below the United Kingdom national average. The hon. Member for Llanelly did not mention that. It was 1·5 per cent in December 1973 compared with a United Kingdom national average of 2·2 per cent. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his predecessor can ever remember a December when they could have gone to their constituents and talked about an unemployment rate of 1·5 per cent.——

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The Secretary of State is talking nonsense.

Mr. Peter Thomas: If the hon. Member for Carmarthen is anxious about the effect of a three-day working week on those who are now in good employment, he should go to his miner friends and suggest to them that the remedy is in their hands.
Other parts of Carmarthenshire, too, have low unemployment figures. Carmarthen itself has a level of 1·3 per cent., and the December level in Llandeilo and Llandovery was 2·4 per cent. The hon.

Member for Carmarthen appears not to like the facts. I can remember that a few years ago in the Welsh Grand Committee the hon. Gentleman was always on his feet pointing out the high unemployment rates. The Opposition seem bitterly disappointed when figures of this kind are made public.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I do not want to advise the Secretary of State, who represents one of the Hendon seats, about the affairs of Wales. He should go to Wales and discover the facts for himself. Is he not aware that a year ago unemployment in Wales reached 60,000, a figure never experienced in Wales since the war? To talk of reductions now is easy. The figure could not go any higher. It had to come down.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am not saying that it has come down. I am giving the level at the moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like it when figures like these are given, because he is only too happy in a political situation when the figures are bad. The hon. Gentleman should not think that I do not know Wales. I was a Member of Parliament for a Welsh seat for many more years than he has been a Member of Parliament for a Welsh seat. I was in this House 23 years ago representing a Welsh seat. I know Wales, and I know how pleased the people of Carmarthen are at the situation that obtained in December and how concerned they are that it is in jeopardy because of certain other matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards), who made such a splendid speech which was appreciated by everyone, pointed to the problems of Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire still has its problems. Unemployment in that county shows a marked seasonal variation, reflecting the importance of the tourist industry. The completion of construction work on the Esso and Amoco refineries last year has added to the unemployment problem, but I agree with him that there are encouraging prospects. There are more people in employment now.
We all naturally hope that oil and gas will be found in commercial quantities in the waters of the Celtic Sea. The Government are co-operating with the largest operators in a programme of research into conditions in that area. There has


always been a case for pressing on with this exploration work as quickly as possible. Our present energy difficulties give added point to this need. But we must ensure that a proper balance is struck between economic and environmental considerations.
I believe that if oil or gas is found it will be possible to do this, to the benefit of Pembrokeshire, Wales and the country as a whole. I entirely agree with the view that we must take account of the need for infrastructure improvements to cater for Celtic Sea developments, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Welsh Office will play its full part in this matter.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not——

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: What about agriculture?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman asks me to refer to agriculture, which clearly was of concern to many hon. Gentlemen. The agricultural industry in Mid- and South-West Wales obviously faces problems.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Major problems.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot recall an occasion when agriculture did not have problems, but let us not forget the strength of the industry which faces those problems. It is no longer in a state of stagnation which characterised it when we took office three and a half years ago. Our aim at that time was to create the right conditions in which an efficient organisation could expand. That we have succeeded in doing that is demonstrated by the response of the industry. There has been an increase in net production throughout the country of 11 per cent. compared with an increase of only 5 per cent. during the preceding five years.
Wales has shared in this success story. True, there has been the impact of the recent high feed prices. I fully appreciate the concern expressed by farmers at the considerable increase in their costs, to which reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and, indeed, by other hon. Members. The milk producers are considerably concerned. Because of this concern we agreed to start discussing the Annual Farm Price Review earlier than usual. The question of costs has figured largely in these discussions,

which are well under way, and will be taken into account in the determination which follows the review.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: I agree that the price review procedure has taken place two weeks earlier than usual, but may I ask whether the determination will be two weeks earlier than before?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot give any undertaking about the determination of the price review. All I know is that farmers were pleased that this important matter that they wished to have discussed as soon as possible was accelerated.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor and the hon. Member for Cardigan referred to the rate support grant. Arrangements for determining the level of rate support grant have been the subject of intensive discussions between the Government and the local authority associations. The problems of Wales are well understood by everyone who has been involved in these discussions. Hon. Members know of my concern over the impact on some areas of the various formulae that have been discussed with the local authority associations, and I assure the House that the Government are still considering the matter and that we shall publish a White Paper in due course.
The situation in Mid-Wales and South-West Wales is in many ways a hopeful one, despite the problems that we undoubtedly face today. It would be wrong to underestimate the effect upon these areas of the difficulties that we are experiencing, and no one wishes to do that, but it would be equally wrong not to acknowledge the substantial measure of success that has been achieved and the prospects for the future.
Conditions are being created throughout this wide area of the Principality which, despite the many problems, will enable vital thriving communities to adapt themselves to the demands of the future.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL NAVY (EXPENDITURE)

1.46 a.m.

Dr. David Owen: The present defence policy of the Government is a direct contradiction of


practically everything that Ministers said when they were in opposition and, indeed, on frequent occasions is a contradiction of what Ministers said in the earlier part of this Government's tenure of office.
The present defence stance of the Government is a staggering indictment of the whole philosophy of the Tory Party over the last 50 to 100 years and of successive Tory statements on defence. The facts are that the defence expenditure cuts that have been announced for this coming year will involve the largest reduction that has ever been made in expenditure for a succeeding year.
In May of last year, a cut of £60 million was announced for the year starting April 1974. In October of last year, a further consequential reduction of £12 million was announced to operate in 1974. In December, the staggering reduction of £178 million was announced, making a grand total of exactly £250 million—not a phased reduction over two or three years, but a savage reduction to take effect in the year immediately following.
This decision on defence expenditure reflects the dire overall state of the nation's economy. Regardless of the coalminers working a five-day week, and irrespective of the oil crisis, we now know from the Governor of the Bank of England that this country, after more than three years of profligacy and mismanagement is running a deficit on the balance of payments of £2,500 million a year. It is no wonder that the governor warns of some years of relative austerity stretching ahead.
I, personally, do not dispute the need for these defence cuts, and I have always believed that the defence budget should be kept under constant scrutiny. What I dispute is the way this country has been run and the way the economy has been allowed to drift downwards so that this sorry state of affairs has had to be announced as an emergency programme, without any warning, and not as part of a phased steady reduction in the defence budget.
Never again will the Tory Party be able to represent itself, as it has done ceaselessly, as the sole protector and safe-guarder of the Services. Never again will the Tory Party be able to claim to be the

sole patriotic party. Never again will this House—and, hopefully, the country—have to listen to the mixture of bombast and hypocrisy that has constantly come from the benches opposite when defence matters are discussed. These cuts represent yet another of the Government's now famous U-turns.
I do not need to remind Ministers of the pledges they made on defence expenditure when in opposition, whether it was to keep a sizeable presence in the Far East—£100 million a year was one of the figures mentioned—a firm commitment to remain in the Persian Gulf, the commitment to build a fifth nuclear submarine or the commitment to increase the build rate of hunter-killer submarines. The list is never-ending. Yet all those promises lie now in the waste paper basket of electoral pledges to take their place along with the most famous electoral pledge of all: to cut prices "at a stroke".
What must not be forgotten, however, is that the implementation of these cuts, and particularly the latest of £178 million, can have a savage effect on the Services, on the Service men who work in them and—because I am particularly concerned in this debate with the Royal Navy—on the major industries, particularly the Royal dockyards, that serve the Navy.
It is simply not good enough that the Minister yesterday was unable to give the House any information or details about these cuts. We are told that a number of Royal dockyard projects will necessarily be curtailed or depressed and that Ministers are either unable or unwilling to give any details. I hope that the Minister tonight will at least be able to give some details. No details have been given, or apparently can be given, of the effect of these expenditure cuts on the major cities that serve and are often very dependent on the Services or—because I am obviously concerned about the city of Plymouth—of the intimate effects on the Royal dockyards or on employment. We know nothing about what will happen to Service men's pay or to dockyard workers' pay. This lack of information is not tolerable.
It might have been reasonable to wait for the Defence White Paper, but we are told by constant Government leaks that


they intend to pitch the country into a cynically contrived General Election. I hope that this is not so, but it would certainly put my mind at rest if the Minister tonight would tell us that these announcements will be made in the Defence White Paper which will be published before the country is facing a General Election. It may well be that, even now, Ministers will hold back from what would in my view be a totally irresponsible election. If, however, they go to the country, the country, and especially the constituencies which will be deeply affected by these expenditure cuts, have the right to know what impact and effect they will have.
I should like to know from the Minister whether the savage cut-back is to be in the dockyard modernisation programme, so essential for the effective working of the dockyards and so vital for achieving the improvements in productivity which most of us want to see. Are the cuts to be a series of postponements, rephasings or carrying forward of expenditure which we have seen occurring in the defence budget for the last two years—the same mix as we have had before, fudging through and avoiding serious strategic cuts, while at the same time there is lavish runaway expenditure on items such as the cruiser programme, now running at close to £100 million a cruiser, and we have even been told that that may be rephased?
Are we once again to see a reduction in the hunter-killer submarine programme, which would have a profound effect on the dockyards refitting the submarines, Plymouth and Chatham? There are already once again signs that expenditure on the surface Navy, a version of the Navy of a century ago, will reduce expenditure on the Navy of the future, the underwater Navy. Before it is plunged into an election, the country has the right to know the answers to such questions.
During the period of the present Government we have experienced unparalleled industrial unrest in the Government establishments in the Royal dockyards. What has been interesting has been that that unrest has been at all levels—management, non-industrial civil servants and others. In January of last year they passed a resolution recording their deep sense of outrage at the

Government in their rôle of employer for breaking their pay agreement with their own employees.
Earlier in the life of the present Government there was a major strike in the Royal dockyards, and the Government's allegation that the dockyard workers were then acting unreasonably was comparable with the present situation. When eventually the matter went to arbitration, a substantial increase was awarded and the men's initial claim was largely upheld. Since the Government came to office, we have not had a single new piece of naval construction carried out in the dockyards, and that is a long way from their pledges before taking office.
For many years I have believed that it was time that the country's defence policy was conducted on a more bipartisan basis. However, in opposition hon. Members opposite have never missed an opportunity to try to make party capital out of defence policies. I remember that at the last election the present Secretary of State for the Environment, then defence spokesman, made a speech at Plymouth when he gave a number of pledges, none of which has been fulfilled.
All too frequently—and the Minister himself has fallen into this trap)—they have made speeches—and I think that it was the Minister himself who came to the West Country to speak about the Labour Party's defence programme—quoting from the Blackpool Conference. I hope that the Minister will not do that again, because there is now a defence policy from which he may quote rather more accurately and on which the Labour Party will fight the next election. It is remarkably similar to the policy being pursued by the present Government. We say:
While maintaining our support for NATO as an instrument for détente no less than defence we shall, in consultation with our allies, progressively reduce the burden of Britain's defence spending to bring our costs into line with those carried by our main European allies. Such a realignment would, at present levels of defence spending, mean savings on defence expenditure by Britain of several hundred million pounds per annum over a period".
The present Government have reduced defence expenditure by £250 million in just one year.
For further confirmation of the trend one has only to look at the RUSI memorandum "Budgeting for Defence", published in 1972, when the writer said:
The reshaping of the UK defence that was settled between 1964 and 1969 has undergone no significant change in the last three years. A pattern of defence priorities was established towards the end of Labour's period of office which has been preserved by their successors. Moreover, the scale of the defence effort, and hence the position of defence in the scale of national priorities, also appears to have become settled.
All that has happened since then is that defence has received far less of a share of the overall national budget. I do not dissent from those priorities. But if, as I fear, this country is to be plunged into a General Election, I hope that we shall have no more bombast from the Under-Secretary or from his Secretary of State, or from any Ministers who purport to speak on defence matters, and that they will recognise that the defence policies which they have pursued, particularly over the last year or so, mean that there is precious little difference between the two parties and that they serve the Services ill by pretending otherwise.
However, there is a more serious responsibility upon them. If the Government are to plunge this country into a General Election, the overall effect of that £250 million reduction in one year will have a serious impact on the Services and the people who are deeply implicated in the defence budget. The Government have a duty to the country to reveal far more information on how those reductions are to be made than has yet been given, and certainly far more than has been made available.

2.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): It is always an interesting experience to listen to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), a predecessor of mine at the Ministry of Defence. But tonight it seems that we have had an extraordinary degree of muddled thinking in the thesis which he has put before the House.
The hon. Gentleman castigated us for our policy and then said that it was apparently his intention and that of his party to adopt a similar policy. He castigated me for indulging in bombast,

but the only example that he could give was the fact that in the West Country I had quoted from the findings of the Labour Party at its conference, which I imagine the hon. Gentleman knows rather better than I do.
The Labour Party gave a fair degree of support for a £1,000 million cut in defence expenditure. That is my understanding of what happened at the Labour Party Conference. It hardly seems appropriate that I should be castigated for quoting from the Labour Party Conference. I hope that I did it accurately. If I did not, I apologise. All that I did was to quote from the debate on defence at the Labour Party Conference. I find it surprising for the hon. Gentleman to accuse me of bombast for so doing, and from him, as he usually gives serious thought to these matters, it is extremely disappointing.
I was particularly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman castigate the present Government for what happened in relation to the Far East and in the Persian Gulf. In opposition we had wished to reverse the policy relative to the Persian Gulf. As a back bencher I paid visits to that area. But the General Election which turned out the Labour administration came too late for us to make it possible to reverse the policies pursued by the Labour Government. It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman should castigate us on that matter.
In view of the success which the ANZUK force has had, it is disappointing to most of us now that we shall be unable to continue the commitment there in the same way and with the same degree of co-operation. But we lived up to our pledges on that matter.
It is disappointing to find the hon. Gentleman indulging in electioneering before we know whether there will be a General Election soon.
The final absurdity is for the hon. Gentleman to castigate us generally for our defence policy and then to say that it is almost precisely the same as that which he would adopt.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "castigate". I am not castigating him for his defence policy but for advocating at the last General Election a defence policy which has not been


pursued and for the Government pretending over the last three years that they are pursuing a policy which they have not pursued. That is the difference—the eventual policy, and particularly the defence cuts announced in one year.

Mr. Buck: We were criticised on defence matters last year because we raised the proportion of the gross national product which we devoted to defence. Now we are being criticised by the hon. Member for cuts. Perhaps I may now get on to the serious part, having heard the hon. Member indulging in his defensive electioneering.
Of course, as Minister for the Royal Navy, I share some of the anxiety which he has expressed, but I should like to assure him that I and my colleagues in the Department will do our utmost to ensure that adverse effects on the Services are kept to a minimum. I note what the hon. Member said about that. He said that in the past when there were cuts we had "fudged" them. He said that rephasing had avoided serious cuts. That seems to me an intellectual gymnasticism by the hon. Member. I found his speech, if I may say so without bombast, uncharacteristically lacking in logic.
In the current economic and industrial circumstances, the Government had no alternative but to reduce the level of public expenditure in the way announced by the Chancellor, and it was clearly right that all major spending programmes, including defence, should take their share of the cuts.
As the House will know, we have been asked to reduce our expenditure during 1974–75 by a total of £178 million, at 1973 survey prices. This reduction will be made up of a cut of 20 per cent.—£16 million—on the planned capital expenditure element—excluding married quarters—of the Department of the Environment's defence works Vote ; and a cut of £162 million on defence expenditure on goods and services—less wages and salaries—that is, a cut of about 10 per cent. in expenditure on, broadly, the equipment and stores programmes.
The greater part of the contribution from the naval programme to the overall defence budget reductions will be found by rephasing the new ship construction and weapons procurement programmes. In addition there will be some rephasing

of the stores and naval aircraft programmes.
The energy cuts and the shorter working week and shortages of steel and other materials are bound to have an effect upon ship construction capacity, and upon the progress of ships at the builders. I fear, too, that some delays must be expected in deliveries from the heavy engineering and electronics industries, which supply us with much of the equipment which goes into our warships and shore establishments. Progress on a number of naval weapons and associated projects is also being held back.
The longer the restrictions continue, the greater the delays will obviously be. Even so, there will inevitably be some slippage, and this will increase if the three-day working week and shortages of materials and components persist for any length of time.
Thus a direct result of the three-day week and the general shortages of materials will be a degree of rephasing of the naval equipment programme. At this stage it is too early to judge its precise effects, or how much of the financial savings required in 1974–75 will accrue in this way.

Dr. Owen: Surely the Minister is not saying that savings made between now and April which will take part of the 1973–74 budget will be carried forward into 1974–75? How does he account for the £60 million defence expenditure for 1974–75 which was announced in May last year in addition to the £178 million expenditure?

Mr. Buck: That has largely been dealt with by the rephasing of which the hon. Member spoke. At 2.10 a.m. it is a little late to start playing the numbers game. Perhaps he will hear me through. If instead of electioneering the hon. Member wants a detailed analysis of the figures I shall be glad to do what I can to provide that, although we are very much in the early stages. These defence matters were dealt with in the House only very recently.
In view of the present uncertainty it would clearly be inappropriate to start now to take deliberate action to reduce the programme by cancelling or deferring specific major projects. But the position is under constant review and if it becomes


clear that slippage of the naval programme is not reducing demand to the required degree, further measures will be necessary. In that case, consideration would have to be given to deferring planned orders for new ships and the phasing of the purchase of weapons and equipment.
But, as I have said, it is too early to say to what extent deferments of this sort might be required and which particular projects might in the event be affected. We shall do our best to minimise the effects. In particular, we attach the highest importance to our contribution to NATO's land, sea and air forces. In arriving at decisions on the detailed application of the reductions in planned expenditure we shall give top priority to continuing to meet those commitments. If the need arose to make any adjustments we should of course consult fully our allies in NATO.
To sum up the effect on the naval equipment programme, there is no need at this stage for the cancellation or deliberate deferment of any projects, but we shall be watching closely to see how the situation develops.
In considering what deliberate measures we may have to take, we must bear in mind not only the importance of preserving operational efficiency but also the need to sustain the industrial base on which our equipment procurement programme so largely depends. The House will recall that in the Defence White Paper of 1972 we announced the establishment of the Procurement Executive. One of the most important tasks of this organisation is to strengthen relations with defence suppliers and to maintain the continuity of work and the expertise in both development and production which are vital to the structure of the defence industry. At the same time, we are very conscious of the desirability of maintaining the levels of employment, especially in the development areas, which have been built up in consequence of the materiel procurement programme of the three Services.
As for shipbuilding, the House will recall that on 23 rd July both my right hon. and noble Friend the now Secretary of State for Energy, then Secretary of State for Defence, and my right hon.

Friend the Minister for Industrial Development announced in Parliament the Government's intentions on future warship ordering policy. The main feature of this was the increasing concentration of warship orders on three firms, Messrs. Vickers, Yarrow and Vosper-Thorneycroft, all of which have, over the years built up the highly specialised design, planning and quality control capacity, which is so vital for the building of a modern warship. It is most important that the economies that are the subject of this debate should not erode the capacity and confidence of those firms on whom, in the long term, we shall depend, or of those other firms on which we are currently relying to complete warship orders. I need not remind the House that the majority of the warship building firms are situated in the development areas, where there is a special need to maintain employment.
What I have said about the need to maintain continuity of production in the shipbuilding industry applies equally to the heavy engineering and electronics industries, where we, and the Army and the RAF, which also have a vital interest, have established excellent relationships with our main suppliers.
In line with the general policy I have just described, no action is at present contemplated to reduce the ship refitting and repair programmes of the Royal dockyards. As is well known, however, the difficulties they have been having in recruiting and retaining labour make achievement of these programmes somewhat problematical. Efforts to recruit so as at least to maintain the present level will continue. Progress with the work will be carefully monitored and adjustments made to programmes as necessary, with high priority being given to keeping ships operational.
These monitoring arrangements will also cover slippages which may arise from the energy crisis and from shortages of materials. Although the Royal dockyards are exempt from the restrictions on the consumption of electricity and are therefore working normal hours, every effort is being made by general managers to restrict consumption to 65 per cent. of the normal by such measures as removing a proportion of lights, concentrating office workers in fewer rooms and by appeals to the employees, supplemented by regular supervision.


The dockyards are not, however, exempt from the growing shortages of materials which are bound to impose reductions in the amount of work which can be done. These were already being felt before the energy crisis because of the world shortage of certain raw materials. The energy crisis will add to this by reducing for a time the supply of finished products. Steps have been taken by my Department to ensure that scarce materials are directed to the jobs having the highest priority. Expenditure on plant and machinery is likely to be curtailed by delays in delivery.
The improvements in dockyard facilities, which have been in hand for some years, will be affected by the cuts in the naval works programme due to the moratorium on works expenditure generally announced by the Government in October 1973 and to the cuts in defence expenditure which are the subject of the debate.
But it is impossible to state now the precise effect of the cuts on the programmes for the dockyards or for the rest of the naval works programme. The moratorium was designed to roll back contracts for three months, with certain exceptions for accommodation and urgent operational requirements. The delaying effect of this will continue into 1974–75. We are now working out how the cuts announced in December can best be met.
In broad terms the reply to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we must accept a degree of slackening in the pace of improvements. We are not envisaging a lesser Navy, but circumstances for the moment will inevitably necessitate a "less better" Navy. Given the circumstances which I have adumbrated, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is a sound policy, although some of his right hon. and hon. Friends may not. We must be grateful that he personally does not seem to have fallen into the snare which entangles certain Opposition hon. Members, and further parts of the hon. Gentleman's party, who would appear to wish to slash and cut defence expenditure right through the bone and into the marrow. He is not one of them, but he knows that that is the view of some of his hon. Friends. They wish to see the cuts go right through to the marrow and to see the marrow drain away.

It would appear from some of the speeches which I quoted when speaking in the West Country, which were made at the Labour Party Conference, that that is the view of some. The damage which such recklessness would wreak, amounting perhaps to a thousand million pounds, would do considerable harm to our security, and its effect on NATO would not exactly be desirable. It seems that we have the Labour Party going away from those firm commitments in its hastily drafted campaign document, which says that a Labour administration would,
Progressively reduce in consultation with our Allies the burden of Britain's defence spending… while maintaining our support for NATO…".
Those are the words which the hon. Gentleman quoted. Such reductions in defence expenditure seem, from the background of the Labour Party Conference, to have been designed on a mammoth scale. If the hon. Gentleman, with the authority of the Opposition Front Bench, were to deny that, I should be interested to hear him say so. Apparently such cuts seem likely to be on a mammoth scale. The Labour Party would hardly be able to sustain that and then to suggest that support of NATO is a paramount consideration. Do hon. Members opposite think that a shoe-string NATO could be an effective instrument of détente no less than of defence? Do they think that the Warsaw Pact will take its cue from an enfeebled NATO, and meekly phase itself out? Do they think that British industry will be able to sustain employment on an equipment programme at the level of expenditure they propose for defence?
The Labour Party must recognise that such a course of action of mammoth cuts, as stated at its party conference, would cause consternation in NATO.
The Government have held steadily to the broad strategy of their defence policy since 1970. We believe that the relative stability we have achieved has been important in developing the confidence both of our own people, in the Services and outside, and of our allies, in our determination to maintain our nation's security. Some, at any rate, of the Opposition may wish for fundamental changes, but we do not, and we shall ensure that the current proposed cuts in expenditure will be applied in such a way that our defences remain truly effective.

Orders of the Day — RAIL TRANSPORT (LONDON)

2.21 a.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I make no apology for returning to a topic discussed on previous occasions, almost annually it seems—the condition of rail transport in South-East London. Before I begin I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in coming here at this late hour to give a reply on this important matter.
I am sure that both sides are glad that the rail situation seems to have eased and I hope that that will go on, and that we shall have normal working from now on. Nothing in the remarks I shall make is calculated to exacerbate industrial relations in the industry, nor to prevent wiser counsels prevailing, nor to prevent a reasonable settlement ultimately being reached.
It is clear from what has been happening in London in the last few weeks that we have a peculiar problem in London and an even more peculiar problem in South-East London. It is something which is endemic, and it has been going on for years. I, in all the years I have been in the House, have been constantly referring to some of the great difficulties from which my constituents suffer and from which many people living in South-East London suffer and have suffered for years. Their rail travel, even in normal times, is no joke and I know that the Minister is aware of those problems. They make jokes in my constituency about the Dartford Loop and the Bexley-heath Line, but they are sick jokes, and those of us who, for years, have had to use commuter trains in South-East London know well that there are times of the year when travel is purgatory. Obviously in the last few weeks things have been outrageous.
It is surprising that we in this House seem to take so little interest in the transport difficulties of the people of London. London's problems have been and are being neglected. One of the difficulties, I suppose, is that London is not a region such as Mid-Wales or Yorkshire or Lancashire. One can have frequent debates on Mid-Wales and the North-East Coast but London, in this, seems to be overlooked.

It seems that the trouble we have been having these last few weeks, in London particularly, but in the country as a whole, has been largely overshadowed by other problems, industrial, social and economic, and it is a pity that so little seems to have been attempted to get to grips with the difficulties we have been having recently. Transport is just as vital as fuel and power. Transport is vital to the solution of the problems of fuel and power.
It is almost incomprehensible that we have not had great minds in the art of industrial relations devoting their attention to a solution of these problems. For some years it has seemed to me that some of the old-fashioned attitudes in industrial relations are inappropriate in the business of transport, particularly passenger transport. A fact we have overlooked and still overlook is that rail transport difficulties affect the movement of goods, but the effect on them is not perhaps so dramatic, so obvious, as effects on the movement of passengers. I have no doubt, however, that British Rail, and Southern Region in particular, must have lost a lot of goods traffic in recent weeks. One of the problems they have had to face over the years is that of being on the knife edge of revenue. Yet they have these unfortunate periods when traffic seems to break down altogether.
Some people engaged in the industry seem to overlook the fact that an industrial dispute is to gain public support. It seems a singularly ill-advised method of gaining it to inflict so much trouble and difficulty on the very people whose support those in dispute are supposedly trying to win. It seems to me as a very ordinary person living south of the river a singularly unfortunate way of trying to get public support.
During the last few weeks especially conditions have been deplorable. On the first day of the industrial action I went to Well Hall, in the middle of my constituency, to try to get a train to come here. There were no trains at all. I went by bus from Well Hall to Woolwich Arsenal station, and there were no trains from there that day, either. Eventually I came by bus. It took me some four hours to get to the House. That was on the first day of the industrial action. For pretty well the whole of


the period since then not a passenger train has stopped at any station in my constituency. Thousands of ordinary people trying to get to work have been affected. Many have gone to extraordinary lengths to get to work.
What are the alternatives? I heard of one young man who has been travelling by bus from Eltham Heights to the other side of the Blackwall Tunnel to pick up one of the tube trains on the other side of the river—an extraordinary way of getting to the centre of London. It reflects great credit on many ordinary people that they will put themselves to so much inconvenience to get to work. Many of them have been travelling by road in private cars. The roads at the best of times are chaotic, but in the last few weeks they have been indescribable. One morning I saw a traffic queue all the way from Surrey Docks in Bermondsey to Charlton Lane, moving at no more than walking pace. Some people have been taking two, three or four hours to get to London.
On Tuesday morning, I met my son-in-law, a civil servant who works in London, in the Strand at 10.15. He had just arrived, having left home at just after 7.30. He had travelled about ten miles from Plumstead and he had the same journey back at night. My son-in-law is a very uncivil servant at the moment, and has been for some weeks.
This is the plight of thousands of people who live in London, particularly South-East London. The bus services have been undergoing tremendous difficulties and it is greatly to the credit of London Transport that they have been running as they have. Many people have not been able to come to work at all. One young couple in South-East London tried to come to Central London by motor cycle, but they were frightened by the competition from other traffic and eventually left the motor cycle at home.
The people who suffer are ordinary people, other trade unionists. They are not traditionally those against whom industrial disputes are levelled. They are ordinary working-class folk. The better-off can travel in by car but people who do not have cars and have to rely on public transport have been put to tremendous inconvenience. Big firms employ hire cars to get executives to

work or take hotel accommodation for senior key personnel, but the ordinary person suffers. This is intolerable.
But the real problem in South-East London, unlike so many other parts of London and the country as a whole, is that there are no alternatives to the trains of the Southern Region. The bus services are difficult. They have often been run down because of staff shortages—a point never raised in the House before. I am sure that the Minister is aware of these difficulties. The road conditions are chaotic, and because of its peculiar geography, with roads carved up by bridges, railway lines and the Surrey Canal, road transport in South-East London is very difficult anyway.
The roads carry too much traffic at the moment, particularly heavy lorries. There are times of day when the whole of the inner part of South-East London seems to be one vast lorry park There is parking on yellow lines, parking on double yellow lines, and the police are powerless to do much about it. That problem is peculiar to South-East London.
The major difficulty is that there are no tube services in South-East London. The people who organise the tube system must have peculiar maps on which South-East London does not appear. Even when it is built the Fleet line will not serve the major part of South-East London. There is a complete lack of urgency about investment in alternative methods of public transport for South-East London.
The conditions of the last few weeks are not new. South-East London has suffered them many times. When I worked at the Elephant and in the Waterloo area I remember how often I was forced to start off for work at 6 a.m. to reach work for 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m., and then to delay departure until 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. when conditions became a little easier. That means that many people living in South-East London and working in other parts of London are doing a 12-hour or 14-hour day, out of which they are working for only five hours. That is intolerable.
I often wonder who cares about this, apart from the people who suffer, many of whom are inarticulate. When I first came to South-East London way back


in 1950 I remember expressing myself loudly on top of one of the old trams in the Old Kent Road to the effect that all that people of South-East London were fit for was to wait for hours in traffic jams. A representative member of the working class of South-East London invited me to step around the corner and go three rounds with him. That was more than 20 years ago. The trams have disappeared but the chaos in the Old Kent Road continues. Why do these conditions persist? Whose responsibility is it too see that ordinary folk are taken care of?
South-East London needs a comprehensive transport plan, an overall view of what is being done in public transport. The private motor car is not the answer. The roads of South-East London were never built for the volume of traffic that they have to carry. We need radical solutions. Perhaps now that the industrial trouble has subsided and we have breathing space and an atmosphere of more good will we can get down to the whole question of what needs to be done so that the people of South-East London shall be able to travel in reasonable comfort, not like cattle, not being pushed around and not having to endure hours of torture in going to and from work.

2.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) for raising this subject tonight and also for the way in which he has done it. I am grateful, too, for his opening remarks, which I appreciate.
Like him, I would not wish to exacerbate what is still a sensitive and delicate industrial relations situation. Like him, too, I pay tribute and give the thanks of myself and the Government to the commuters, not only in London, but in other parts of the country, who have had to bear the brunt of this situation. If some of the conditions they have had to endure had been inflicted upon animals we would have been deluged with letters from people saying they were reporting us to the RSPCA. These people have shown remarkable patience and fortitude. There have been some ugly scenes but remarkably few of them.
I know that the Minister for Transport Industries very much hopes that these matters can be properly settled between the three unions and the British Railways Board so that we can get an element of stability and common sense into the situation and so that the board can carry out its restructuring exercise with the unions concerned.
Quite naturally the hon. Member concentrated upon South-East London. I am aware of the problems personally because back in 1954 I was a student at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and frequently travelled from Maze Hill into London for a night out in town—and sometimes came back on the milk train in the morning. I was travelling at that time on a Service concessionary ticket so I was only paying 85 per cent. of the normal fare. Currently my brother lives in Bexleyheath and has the honour to be the agent for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am therefore aware of the problems of the Bexley line from a political and practical point of view.
What we have to be clear about are the responsibilities of the various bodies involved in the running of the railways. There are two operators, London Transport and British Rail. The hon. Member mentioned the design of London's Tube system. One of the reasons for its appearance and for South-East London being so badly served by it lies in the success of the old London-Brighton-South Coast line, the London-Chatham line and the London-South-Western—all the railways that went to form Southern Railways.
There was a time when there was a very good system to the South Coast. The line was pressing forward literally into green fields and creating the traffic, which is why many people moved to the area, away from areas served by the not-so-good services of the old London-Midland-Scottish and London-Midlands lines. The success, in the 1920s and 1930s, of this line accounts for the neglect of this area by the tube system and other forms of transport.
We are having to live with that situation. Various things are now happening which will, in the longer term, be of considerable assistance. For example, since June 1970 we have committed about £130 million towards the cost of projects totalling £200 million for London and the South-East of particular assistance to


commuters. This is an important cash injection into the system to provide capital for the renewal and improvement of the services. But the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the initiative for proposing and working up improvements to the system rests with the operators, London Transport or British Rail.
Secondly, and more important, we must remember that for the first time for a very long time there is a comprehensive look being made into the problems of London's rail system. I refer to the London Rail Study, under the chairmanship of Sir David Barran, which has representatives from my Department, the Greater London Council, British Railways and London Transport. At present it is examining the future of London's railways.
Its terms of reference were deliberately drawn extremely wide, and I do not wish to circumscribe its work by suggesting what it should choose as its priorities. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the GLC will be looking to the study for guidance on such matters as investment priorities, service levels and standards and possible financial policies. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot give firm commitments on points which we might expect the Rail Study to cover, and I am sure that this House should not try to do the study's job for it. But it will provide a valuable blueprint to which all the interested parties will be able to work. I expect the group to report in the late summer of this year.
Of course, railways are not the answer to every passenger transport problem in and around London. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that they were. He mentioned especially the problems of heavy lorries in South London. They are problems to which attention has been drawn in previous debates by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). However, the Government are pressing ahead with the construction of the M25 and the outer orbital road which should help in the longer term by taking lorries going to the North, to the East Coast and to the industrial North-West and providing a properly designed, largely motorway route which avoids the need for heavy lorries to plough through the outskirts

of London as they do at the moment.
Railways are best suited to providing for heavy passenger flows, with not too frequent stops, and where the demand pattern seems likely to be stable over a relatively long period. Once a railway is built, its life must be reckoned as 100 years or more, and many of London's railways are of that age and even greater.
There is a tendency amongst some members of the public to think that all London's transport problems can be solved by constructing new railway lines into and across London. However, there simply is not the traffic potential on many suggested routes to justify them in social cost-benefit terms, let alone in financial terms. On the other hand, well-routed new lines can bring immense benefits. One thinks immediately of the success of the new Victoria line, although that has not generated new traffic so much as it has relieved certain sections of the old Northern line.

Mr. Handing: Can the hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made in studying the provision of an orbital railway line which, if one looks at the railway map, has great possibilities?

Mr. Speed: I shall be coming to that in a few moments. This is a matter which has been raised by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the past year or so.
I was saying that the Victoria line is an example of the way in which pressures on existing systems can be relieved, especially when there are interchanges with main line stations.
There are major changes in service patterns which can be considered. The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of an orbital railway round London. There have been a number of suggestions. Some have been to use existing lines, to build new lines or to use a combination of both. I have no doubt that the Barran Study will examine this proposal and the variations of it which have been suggested.
I should not wish to prejudge that study, but it is important to consider whether the benefits to potential travellers outweigh the expenditure of several hundred million pounds on adapting existing tracks and having to


build new ones to take the services. If it is to work properly there could be delays to travellers on radial routes into London caused by stopping their trains to allow interchange with the orbital service.
I am not saying this to damn the thing. I should not wish to do that. But there will be problems of resources and priorities, and it may be that this is one answer. There may be others, involving both rail and other solutions, which might be as efficient and much cheaper. This is a matter that I should expect the Barran Rail Study to consider and we can look at it later in the year.
I turn now to investment. It is easy when sitting on the Opposition benches, whichever Government are in power, to criticise that investment is inadequate. The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, with which I do not quarrel, is that past investment under all administrations has been inadequate, especially when it is remembered that British Railways alone require about £20 million of investment in the London commuter network each year simply to replace outworn assets and to keep the system running. Certainly rail investment levels have not matched the services required. I think that we are making considerable improvements in this respect. No doubt there could and should be more, but I think that matters are improving.
Rail investment levels for the next five years, published in the Public Expenditure White Paper just before Christmas, are a considerable advance on previous ones. The total figure for London and the South-East is nearly £400 million over five years, even after allowing for the effects of the 20 per cent. cut in 1974–75 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December. That shows that a considerable amount will be of benefit, which will be obvious in various ways—track, signalling, stock, and so on.
Perhaps I should mention one investment programme with which the Government have been helping in the shorter term. Many of the services about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned come into London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross. The Government are making a 75 per cent. infrastructure grant on a £163 million scheme for the resignalling

of London Bridge which should be completed in 1976. This will considerably improve the services into these three terminal stations—London Bridge, Cannon Street and Charing Cross.
Another familiar aspect of complaint by the public is the standard of service, reliability and comfort of coaches. On the commuter side it is true that in recent years standards have not matched the high standards on Inter-city services on the Southern and other regions of British Rail. That is for a number of reasons. We must bear in mind that when a coach is built it has a basic life of about 30 years. It can be upgraded and improved, but we still get a basic coach which can be 30 years old. We certainly wish public transport not only to have the best possible image, but to be attractive so that more commuters will use it, knowing that they will be carried comfortably and speedily. The economic realities are that it is often taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that it is at issue because of the infrastructure grants to British Railways or London Transport. This means that there is a disparity between the standards of rolling stock used on different services, particularly the intercity and commuter services.
Nevertheless, there are considerable investment possibilities to try to improve the situation. The hon. Gentleman no doubt knows of the prototype commuter train being run on Southern Region. There have been criticisms of that. A few months ago I replied to an Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) who raised a number of important points which British Railways are taking seriously, as they are the various points being put to them by commuters during the survey that they are carrying out. This new PEP stock as it is called will be the new commuter train to take us into the next century. It is important that we get the right answer, and all the indications from British Railways are that the right answer will be found.
The hon. Gentleman did not say very much about the underground. In the present situation, particularly in central London where there have been problems of industrial action and dislocation, both the underground services and London Transport buses have done a great job, and I should like to pay my public


tribute to the staffs of both services, and particularly to those on the buses who have had to cope with abnormal traffic conditions due to more cars and motorcycles coming into the city. The staffs have done a first-class job with safety and great cheerfulness, and we pay tribute to them.
With regard to the underground, the House may be interested to know that the Government are paying 75 per cent. grant towards the cost of converting London Transport Circle, Hammersmith and City line services to one-man operation. But the economics of railway operation, with the long life of rolling stock and fixed equipment, mean that improvements can be made only as existing equipment wears out, and this the London Transport Executive will be examining carefully.
History has endowed London with a fine railway network. It is possibly the most heavily used network in the world. During the peak hours each morning, British Railways and London Transport between them convey into central London to work about 850,000 people. That the system normally copes so well with this considerable load—although there are black spots in South-East London and elsewhere—is a tribute to the operators and all engaged in that operation.
But no one would pretend—and I do not—that there are not deficiencies. Many, if not most, result from a lack of investment both by operators and by Governments in the past. We are changing all that. Capital investment provision of about £400 million over the next five years is no mean achievement. This important rail study in which all the interested parties are involved—local government, operators and central Government—under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir David Barran—is having a longer-term look at the problems and I hope that it will provide a clear signpost to the way ahead.
I have indicated that many of the problems are long term. Because of that, we need a great deal of vision to make sure that we do even better in our planning than people on the tube lines did 30 or 40 years ago. That is why the Government and the GLC set up the London Rail Study. Answers to the longer-term issues must await the conclusion of this work, but I hope I have said enough to

indicate to the hon. Gentleman that even in the comparatively near future the situation will be improved for his constituents and that the longer-term outlook for London and London commuters should be very much better.

Orders of the Day — POLLUTION (NORTH SEA)

2.59 a.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: The first speech that I made in the House was about pollution of the sea by oil, and in raising the same topic again tonight it occurs to me that this may be the last speech that I shall make in the House,. If I were defeated in a General Election I should reflect upon the irony of the situation because, if my enthusiasm for exploiting the resources of the sea bed had been shared in Government circles, we would even now have had some of our own oil ashore and the country would not be in its present fix.
North Sea oil is a great boon to Britain but our euphoria at the prospect of becoming self-sufficient should not blind us to the environmental hazards that are associated with this development. I know that in Scotland there is disquiet about the effect that the onshore side of the industry may have on areas of outstanding beauty, but I think that this side of things is a preserve of Scottish Members and I do not propose to trespass on their territory tonight. I wish to concentrate my remarks on the pollution risk from the offshore side of the operation.
Marine oil exploitation, unlike the carriage of oil by ships, is localised and, therefore, the areas at risk are fairly easy to identify. Spillage can occur, however, in any number of ways—a fault in a geological structure, a blow-out during drilling, the failure of equipment, storm damage to installations, breakage of pipelines by ships' anchors, carelessness in loading tankers, fire, explosion or quite simply a navigator's error. The policy must be to reduce to the minimum the chances of a mishap and to ensure that any spillage is brought under prompt and effective control.
It is, I suppose, reassuring to know that in what is now more than half a century of offshore exploitation there have been surprisingly few accidents. In


the Gulf of Mexico, for example, I understand that more than 13,000 wells have been drilled during the past 35 years but that there were only seven incidents involving any real risk to the environment.
Nevertheless, when a disaster occurs the results can be rather spectacular. Most hon. Members will recall the incident at Santa Barbara in, I think, 1969. On that occasion the oil smeared something like 30 miles of beach and blackened 800 square miles of sea, and it took three months to plug the leak effectively. In that case, I am told, the geological structure was somewhat unusual, and the experts seem to think that the likelihood of that type of spillage occurring in the North Sea is rather remote. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in replying to this debate, could confirm that that is the opinion also of his Department.
A blow-out is an uncontrolled flow of oil into the sea from a formation being drilled or producing and blow-out preventers, storm chokes and other fail-safe devices are used. Like all complex pieces of equipment, however, they are not completely reliable and blow-outs occur.
Then there is the risk of fire and explosion. This seems to be a more frequent cause of accidents, certainly if experience in the Gulf of Mexico, which is about the only area of which we have experience, is anything to go by. In several instances there pollution has resulted, and in each instance it took some weeks to bring the spill under control.
Another possibility is that the pipeline connecting the well to shore could be broken, allowing oil to escape into the sea. Again, the operations are automatically controlled and the break should result in an immediate cut-off in the pressure. However, undersea pipelines are subject to corrosion and automatic shut-off systems do not always function properly. Again in the Santa Barbara Channel—not the most famous spill—there was an incident in December 1969 when a pipeline belonging to the Union Oil Company ruptured, causing a 50 square mile slick before it was detected.
I dare say that my hon. Friend will argue that the best safeguard against faulty equipment is the interest that the oil companies have in the security of their own investments, and I am sure that that is true, but human error and a desire to reduce costs work against good practice and sound procedures, and it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the highest standards are adopted and applied and it is also the responsibility of the Government to coordinate any clean-up operations that become necessary and to negotiate changes in international law where required.
I believe that I am right in saying that the platform and equipment used in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf come under British jurisdiction, but can my hon. Friend confirm that that is also true of mobile floating rigs? I take it that in future controls will be exercised by my hon. Friend's Department under the Continental Shelf Act and subsequent legislation.
Could my hon. Friend say a little more about preparations that the Government and the industry have made for carrying out clean-up operations, and has there been any attempt to negotiate efforts at collaboration with other countries that may be affected by a spill, such as Norway? Could my hon. Friend also say what progress has been made in trying to secure a fund out of which any damage could be paid for?
I believe that the major threat of pollution from the development of the Continental Shelf arises not from the technology or methods used by the oil industry, but rather in our inability, because the waters overlying the Continental Shelf are the high seas, to control fishing fleets and other shipping in the vicinity of operations. Submarine pipelines are fairly well protected. They are coated in reinforced concrete and they are normally buried to a depth of between three and six feet, but, unfortunately, in parts of the seabed where the bottom is very soft, or very hard, it is not possible to achieve burial with present techniques.
A few weeks ago, I was talking to some divers who are building the pipeline from the Forties Field to Cruden Bay. They told me that they had run into 12 kilometres of boulder clay and that it was improbable that they would be able to


bury the pipeline for that length. I understand that even when trenching is successful, heavy scouring action tends to remove the overburden after a time, leaving the pipe exposed on the bottom. In this state it is vulnerable to ships' anchors and fishermen's nets.
I know that pipelines are marked on charts with a warning to mariners against anchoring and trawling in the vicinity, but pipelines under water are attractions to fish, as is any metal object, and fishermen have a habit of trawling up and down the lines and even within the rig complexes, despite the obvious risks. I understand that BP's pipeline from West Sole Field, though thought originally to have been buried, is now at least partly exposed on the bottom, and the divers who went down to inspect it found dozens of trawl boards lodged against it.
As the law stands, we are quite powerless to do anything about this when foreign fishing fleets are concerned. All that we can do is to notify the relevant embassy and lodge a protest. That is not good enough when one considers the pollution threat and other dangers which are associated with these pipelines.
It is not only pipelines which are at stake. Rigs and platforms are similarly endangered. Under international law any installation on the Continental Shelf must not unjustifiably interfere with recognised shipping lanes, and the maximum safety zone allowed around them is 500 metres. Within those zones, I understand that we are allowed to prohibit the approach of ships which have no direct business with the installation, and that rule applies to foreign as well as to British shipping. But the offshore operators to whom I have talked tell me that they consider this zone to be totally inadequate and that there is a serious danger of ships colliding with rigs.
I do not know how seriously the Government take such a possibility. The danger may seem remote. However, in 1971 a Norwegian ship hit the Nab Tower Lighthouse off the Isle of White and a German coaster collided with the Mid-Barrow Lightship near Clacton-on-Sea. Offshore installations are lit and marked, and their locations are published in notices to mariners and marked on charts. The notices are published annually. Not all ships carry up-to-date

charts. From one of the inquiries about accidents which have occurred in the Channel, it appears that some ships do not carry charts at all but do things by instinct and smell.
If ships can collide with lighthouses and lightships, they can ram oil rigs. British Petroleum sent me its records for a period of six months, which showed that 33 ocean-going ships passed less than a mile from its Indefatigable gas field, many ships passing between the individual platforms. The gas fields off Norfolk and the oil fields in the northern sector of the North Sea lie outside the paths of really heavy maritime traffic, but the danger of a major catastrophe is increased now that the oil hunt is spreading to the English Channel and the Celtic Sea.
I advance three proposals for immediate consideration. Firstly, has my hon. Friend's Department considered placing on rigs some special transmission system to notify not only surface ships but also submarines of the presence of rigs and platforms? Second, a large number of small boats are used to service rigs, carry crews, and so on. I am informed that many of these boats are flying flags of convenience and, therefore, are not subject to our control. Should not we insist that all ships serving offshore oilfields fly British flags and are controlled properly by our authorities? Third, should not the notices to mariners be published more frequently, perhaps on a monthly basis, and should not there be some kind of notice which is distinct from the traditional notices to mariners?
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the hydrographer to the Royal Navy is inserting on Admiralty charts sufficiently quickly the movement of rigs and platforms and the laying of submarine pipelines? I ask that question because I am told that the pipeline now being laid from the Ekofisk field to Teesside, though almost completed, is not yet on the chart.
Those are just three proposals which may help to avoid an accident, but by themselves they are not sufficient. The problem is that the waters overlying the Continental Shelf outside territorial waters are high seas and Britain has power there only over ships which fly her flag. Therefore safety in waters around our offshore oil producing areas can be assured only by internationally agreed


rules which are enforceable solely at the discretion of the Government whose colours happen to be worn.
It is easy to get countries to sign any number of conventions, and we have signed any number of them. It is another matter to persuade them to implement the measures to which they have set their hand. IMCO must have produced half-a-dozen conventions which have not yet been ratified by enough individual countries to be effective. So we must consider whether we are to continue with a state of affairs whereby shipping capable of inflicting massive ecological damage is free to wander through our offshore oilfields within sight of our coast but outside our control.
It might be argued that ships' owners and masters have a vested interest in the safety of their vessels, but so did the owner and master of the "Torrey Canyon". They are under a strong pressure to meet financial deadlines, and many appear to take the quickest way for the quickest return. It is the coastal State and not the flag State which bears the brunt and burden of a maritime casualty. It is Britain which must mount a rescue operation, carry out the lighting and buoying and the salvage work that becomes necessary. Above all it is our population which suffers the consequences of pollution damage which no amount of compensation from an international fund can fully restore.
Recently international law has begun to accept the right of coastal States to act in self protection. The Convention on Intervention on the High Seas in Cases on Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 gave the coastal States power to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate or eliminate grave and imminent danger to their coastline from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea by oil following a maritime casualty. That convention, I am told, has recently been extended to cover cargoes other than oil. That is fine as far as it goes, but we need not remedial action but a preventive system of control.
It is quite extraordinary that flag States can accept the right of a coastal State to bomb a vessel on the high seas if that vessel, as a result of an accident, is

threatening pollution, but at the same time deny that State the right to take measures to prevent such an accident in the first place. One proposal that has been made is that we should simply extend our limits so that any ship anywhere near any of our offshore oilfields would come under national jurisdiction and we could control them all effectively. That would entail a unilateral enlargement of sovereignty and would challenge the whole doctrine of the high seas. It is for that reason that the Foreign Office objects and believes that were we to do this unilateral action would follow which would undermine the freedom of navigation on the high seas elsewhere. I appreciate that there are important commercial and defence considerations involved.
The alternative therefore would be for countries such as Britain to promulgate navigation safety zones in congested or dangerous waters and within those zones to enforce a navigational code covering the routing, traffic separation, pilotage, speed controls and so on. It could be justified in international law as an act of self-defence or by the acknowledged need for coastal protection against pollution and related hazards.
Before my hon. Friend rejects that view, I remind him that Canada has already set a precedent along those lines with her Arctic Waters (Pollution Prevention) Act 1970, which gave the Canadian Government the right to declare any part of the waters covered by the Act as a shipping safety zone and to make regulations applicable to shipping in that area, to appoint pollution prevention officers with power to board any ship and to prohibit navigation if necessary. The Canadians based their case on the overriding right of coastal States to protect themselves against grave threats to the environment. Surely, we should also be entitled to take similar steps by promulgating navigational security zones in areas where we are producing oil, and on grounds of self-protection.
If there were a major accident between a ship and a production platform, there would be loss of life, the write-off of a multi-million-pound investment, an interruption in oil supplies to this country, and a massive pollution threat. If we had such an incident at present it might create a climate of opinion hostile to speedy development of North Sea oil,


because of the effect on wild life, amenity and fisheries.
I strongly support the view that we should work towards more speedy development of these offshore assets. I am sure that even in our efforts to speed it up we must accept some greater risk. There is a greater risk in using some of the methods that have been proposed—single buoy mooring systems, for example. But if there were a serious catastrophe it would have an adverse effect on the Government's efforts in that direction.
Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to get together with his former colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Foreign Office to work out more satisfactory safety for the operations on our Continental Shelf. I hope—and I say this with some reticence, because it seems so rare in this country—that something will be done on this occasion in advance of events, before a catastrophe and the ensuing public outcry force the Government's hand.

3.23 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Emery): My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) should not be so pessimistic——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Does the Minister speak again with the leave of the House?

Mr. Emery: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At this hour of the morning one sometimes forgets these points. I must ask the leave of the House to speak again, and my request appears to have no opposition.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not be so pessimistic. He thought that he might be making his last speech in the House, but I have no doubt that whenever the election comes he will be successful and that we shall see him in the House for a long time to come. I remember once sitting with a majority of only 10 votes but saying that the House had not heard me for the last time whatever the outcome of the forthcoming election. I am sorry to have to remind my hon. Friends that it happened to be true, although there were about 340 days when they were relieved of my presence.
I realise very much my hon. Friend's ability, but, great as it is, I do not believe that he could have spirited, transported or even exploited the oil hydrocarbons under the North Sea to these shores any more quickly than will be achieved as a result of the massive efforts which are now being made. May I remind the House that the first commercial discovery was just over two years ago. The fact that we are as far ahead in getting oil to our shores is, in all the conditions, a major achievement on the part of the oil companies and a tribute to the cooperation of the Government in bringing the oil companies to their present advanced state in exploiting the oil which we wish to see landed as soon as possible.

Mr. Reed: Perhaps it is too late to lament the speed at which we have proceeded in the task of getting the oil brought ashore. In 1970 we should have gone for a semi-submersible rig and a single-buoy mooring system. We could then have brought the oil ashore by tanker. If that had been done we should have had the oil ashore before now. That would have been the result if that had been done instead of opting for fixed platforms in 400 feet of water and for pipelines in 350 feet of water. That was the longest way to go about the matter. Evidence in support of that view is provided by the fact that the Norwegians brought their oil ashore from Ekofisk in two and a half years from discovery. The Danes obtained oil from Dan Field within 13 months of the date of discovery.

Mr. Emery: This matter did not form a major part of my hon. Friend's speech. It is not two and a half years since the first commercial find. The Ekofisk position was known and planned for much longer. I can speak with some personal knowledge of these matters as I was directly concerned. I believe that the use of semi-submersible and mono-buoy loading factors which the Ekofisk field has had to employ would have caused even my hon. Friend some doubts.
The Government and the Department of Energy remain firmly convinced of the major importance of protecting the environment against any adverse effect from offshore exploration and production operations. The first emphasis must be on the need to avoid pollution. I respond immediately to what my hon.


Friend said in that we want to take action before accidents arise rather than to attempt to close the barn door after pollution has been discharged.
The deliberate discharge of oil from offshore operations is prohibited under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971. I mention that to show that the Government have all along been taking preventive measures. The accidental spillage conditions imposed in petroleum products regulations in offshore licences are directed specifically to avoiding escapes of oil by insisting on the best oilfield working practice.
As my hon. Friend was paying attention to the debate earlier today when I was replying on the licensing factors and on safety in the North Sea, it would be tedious for me to run through the whole of the regulation then outlined, other than to repeat that we shall be laying, within a very few days, the regulations concerned with design and construction of rigs and platforms in the North Sea and codes concerned with pipelining which will go a long way to meeting some of the constructional worries my hon. Friend was outlining.
The drilling and production programmes have to be approved by the Secretary of State and my Department. In so doing, we set out to ensure that the necessary technology for safe operation is embodied in these programmes. Again, here is justification for adjusting to specific problems of a location of a platform or rig to meet all weather conditions, which my hon. Friend realises vary very much in different types of location.
We are not attempting to centralise but to ensure that we can use a variation of the necessary safe operating techniques for the different types of programmes, dependent on the geographical location.
Regulations made and to be made under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 are and will be directed to securing the provision of adequate equipment and to establishing all safety standards for that equipment. These play an important part in avoiding pollution and go some way to get over the fears expressed by my hon. Friend on the problems of accidental spillage and about equipment.
The Department's Petroleum Production Inspectorate which periodically visits all offshore installation to ensure that the rules and procedures are being applied, is being strengthened by the appointment of several inspectors who, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will be pleased to know, will be based in Scotland.
These inspectors are attempting to make sure that we can, all the time, make certain that regulations are being complied with and that accident or lack of maintenance and other factors do not allow the type of accidental spillage about which my hon. Friend is concerned.
It is no use just attempting to ensure that spillage does not happen. One has to be prepared to deal with it if that most unfortunate factor arises. If spillage should occur—and I am more than pleased to say that so far there has not been one spillage—oil companies operating in the North Sea have set up, at their own expense, a co-operative arrangement to deal at first hand with notification, clearing up, and dispersal of such a spillage. Arrangements for a warning system, for low-toxicity dispersants, and for the provision of specially-equipped vessels have been made. That answers some of my hon. Friend's queries. Close liaison has been arranged between the industry's arrangements for dealing with spillage and the DTI's nation-wide spillage clearance system, and the latter would be called upon if necessary.
Some of the considerations affecting shipping are, I understand, of concern to my hon. Friend. I would only say that no experience of hazard or collision has arisen to date. Let us not be complacent, for that does not mean that such an experience might not arise in the future. If ships navigate without charts an area many times the dimensions of the area worked at present, that will not help. My hon. Friend put forward certain suggestions that the Abstract to Mariners might bear investigating. His suggestion that all ships serving on the British side of the Continental Shelf oilfield should fly the British flag has, prima facie, a nice sort of emotional attraction, but when we are trying to build up expertise equal to that in any other part of the world, and with an ever-increasing amount of deep sea


exploration and exploitation, when we want to be able to provide from our own experience services in other parts of the world, it would seem very bad policy to be so restrictive. When we have the best opportunities of being able to compete now with any foreign competition we would be encouraging other nations to take similar action against our shipping. We might not be able to provide work and earnings of foreign currency in the years ahead.
I would answer another query in particular. That was about the pipelines, and the worry of trenching and exposure. I would be foolish not to say the obvious—that this is obviously something which has to be watched. The problems of laying pipes at the depths and in the currents and weather conditions of the North Sea are new, and however much in theory the oil companies and my Department believe that we have got it right I accept, immediately, that we have constantly to be checking on the problems which can arise from exposure, and in trenches, even of a number of feet and with concrete basing. We have to ensure that these factors can be checked and that they can be seen not to be hazards.
I would point out that it is very much in the interest of oil companies as well as of the Government, because rupture of a pipeline involves expense and labour for an oil company. The rupture has to be repaired, but first the two ends have to be found. As my hon. Friend will know, once there is a break, the ends walk, and many weeks may be spent trying to find them and to bring them back to join them up again. That expenditure is so much greater than any maintenance cost that it is very much in the interests of the oil companies to ensure that it does not happen.
The new Department is cognisant of the problems and determined not to be caught napping, always to be one jump ahead. No doubt sometimes we shall not be, but we are investigating to try to ensure that the kind of problem which he outlined can be guarded against as much as humanly possible.
I fully appreciate the fears that an increased pace of North Sea oil development might result in a lowering of standards and an increased risk of large-scale pollution, especially from well burners.

But we do not contemplate any lowering of standards and I and my hon. Friends in the Department will do everything in our power to avoid that.

Mr. Reed: Could my hon. Friend undertake to explore with the Foreign Office the whole question of controlling navigation in the vicinity of oil rigs? He has not covered that.

Mr. Emery: I will draw that part of my hon. Friend's speech to the attention of some of my other hon. Friends. It does not rest entirely with my Department or with me. My undertaking is that the Foreign Office, the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping and others concerned will consider his suggestions.

Orders of the Day — MIDDLE EAST (TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION)

3.42 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When he was translated—or was it promoted?—from the Ministry of Defence to the Foreign Office, I doubt whether the Minister thought that he would be making his debut, as I think it is, from the Dispatch Box at 3.42 a.m. If it had been at 3.42 p.m., this is a subject on which he would have had a larger House than at present, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are deeply interested in the issues of trade and technical co-operation with Iran and the countries of the Middle East and are equally alarmed at the proportion of arms sales to those countries.
Perhaps our distilled feelings can best be summarised by Roger Woddis' "Over a Barrel (After 'Arabia' by Walter De La Mare)":
Far are the lands of Arabia,
Where the sheikhs are riding high
And gold will flow through the desert
Till the gushing wells run dry ;
Yet such are the needs of the moment
That the lords of Arabian soil
Cry, 'Arms, for the love of Allah!
Arms, in exchange for oil!'
Sweet is the music of barter
To the ears of a Western state
That can dangle the prize of weapons
As an oh-so-tempting bait ;
For the sake of dark-eyed OPEC
And those thirty million tons
We'd gladly sell our immortal souls.
Let alone a few tanks and guns.


They haunt us, those buried riches
That lie in that distant land,
And the lure of industrial machinery
Is the strongest card in our hand,
Though the eyes of the world look coldly
And cold voices whisper and say:
' They are crazed with the spell of the Saudis,
Who have stolen their pride away.'
I do not claim any originality for that poem, which appeared in a recent issue of the New Statesman, but it sums up the worries of many of my hon. Friends.
From one point of view this cupboard is full of skeletons. For what it is worth, my own position is not very commendable in retrospect—one of feeble protest and worry about the appointment of an arms salesman and acquiescing in the huge arms sales under Governments of both parties over the last 10 to 15 years. Let us admit it, those sales have been of real benefit to British industry.
From another point of view, not less moral, it can be argued convincingly that developed countries have no moral right to deny arms to less-developed countries if arms are what they say they need.
I raise this topic in no spirit of superior virtue or greater morality, and I hope that the Minister, in turn, will not take refuge in any "yah-boo" argument, or what the lawyers more elegantly call the tu quoque argument. I raise the subject first because we must be worried first about the increasing scale of arms supplies from the individual countries of the West and, secondly, to ask whether it has reached this scale because purchasers such as Iran and many of the Gulf States think that they really need such supplies, or whether it is rather because we need the oil at the new price and cannot think how to pay in full for it other than by persuading those countries that they need yet more weaponry.
Some of the facts must raise our collective eyebrows. For example, Iran has now substantially more Chieftain tanks than we have in Rhine Army. The Shah is involved in negotiations for participation not only in the purchase but in the development costs—yes, the development costs of America's Fl 5 and for purchasing the sophisticated Phoenix missiles. He is also said to be interested in a substantial purchase of the multi-rôle combat aircraft. We are not talking about

toys. We are talking about the most sophisticated weaponry on earth.
When I suggested to a friend recently back from Iran that the Shah might see himself as some latter-day Xerxes or Darius, he replied glumly that that was not the position. The Shah has relatively more military capacity in today's modern world than had Xerxes in the ancient world. Herodotus would have shuddered at the weight of Persian armament.
The trouble about weaponry of this order is that either it is a colossal waste of human skill and the earth's resources or someone, somewhere, some time is likely to want to use it—or, perhaps most likely, the amount of cash spent on the Armed Forces enrages the civilian population, many of whom in some countries in the Middle East are among the poor of the world. Over the long term what we are up to could be dynamite. We must be careful that these poor people do not come bitterly to resent us, the suppliers of the arms. The arms build-up in some countries of the Middle East is far in excess of any threat posed by their immediate Arab neighbours.
Writing in Impact International, Mr. A. W. Hamid gives the figures—I cannot vouch for them—that in 1972 Britain and America—I leave out France and the rest of Western Europe—supplied Iran with £370 million worth of arms. In 1973 it was £800 million. I understand that this year it is going up at an even faster rater. The Americans, for example, are supplying a lot of sophisticated weapons to the Saudis, including 100 Northrop F5E international fighters. From his time at the Ministry of Defence the Minister will know what that means.
Against this background I have certain specific questions to ask about the recent visits to the Middle East of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State, Foreign Office, and about the industrial delegation under Mr. Peter Carey. I welcome, as we all do, reported Iranian interest in steel billets, plastics, tyres and paper products and particularly long-term factories. This kind of trade with the Middle East could not be more welcome. I do ask whether the various important people who have been to the Middle East have talked to leaders such as King Faisal, asking what they


thought would happen to their countries when the signs become evident that the oil will cease to gush.
The argument is for anticipatory action that might be taken in the form, for example, of industrial development and massive irrigation schemes.
What effort is being made by the Government to dissuade Middle-Eastern Governments from buying arms and to persuade them to make purchases which will contribute to the longer-term improvement of the standards of their people? It is perhaps an understandable human situation. On the one side of the table we have Ministers who desperately want to win currency for oil. On the other hand are men bewildered by their own wealth and usually genuinely trying to secure the future of their own country. It would never occur to me to sneer at the capacity or intelligence of most of the Arab leaders with whom we negotiate. They are quite as patriotic as any of us. The issue is this: in difficult circumstances are we sure that we are presenting the options that will secure the real long-term good of their people? It is not only our moral duty but it is in our own interests to present options that are sophisticated, expensive, technical advances which are to their good and the long-term good of mankind, such as desalination plants and massive irrigation of the desert. I know that British industry is interested in such proposals.
Secondly, as one who voted in favour of our entry to the Common Market on 28th October 1971, I get a feeling of deep dismay and depression at the spectacle of individual countries in Western Europe separately and secretly running along to Riyadh and other capitals of the Middle East, each trying to persuade these countries to buy more arms. The Americans also seem to be in this to the hilt. Apparently the Minister disagrees. If he can deny this, I and many of my colleagues will be very relieved.
We want to know why we sent Sir Reginald Anderson off to Riyadh in December. Was it sell Harriers, Chieftains and Rapiers? Why did the German State Secretary, Siegfreid Mann, go off on 8th January? Why have numerous French delegations been selling Mirage IIIEs and AMX 30 tanks? What took place in the

various discussions in Rome? What efforts have the Italians made to sell sophisticated weaponry?
The picture which has been built up is that of Europe in the spring of 1914 and not that of the Europe which many of us hoped to see in the spring of 1974 and of the Europe that we hoped for on 28th October 1971.
… co-operation, not confrontation, offers the only hope which, of course, involves the achievement of a Middle East peace. This might be linked with plans for the flow of oil and the development of the Arab economies. Both the West and Russia would have to be parties to the arrangements. The longer-term problems stem from the sharp rise in the cost of oil rather than its relative scarcity. On present form, the Arab states could soon be running a favourable trade balance of some $20,000 million to $30,000 million a year, with corresponding deficits spread among the oil importing countries. Unless wisely handled a payments disequilibrium on such a scale could prompt each deficit country to try to protect itself by restrictive measures amounting to beggar-my-neighbour. Since the Arabs can hope to be able to spend on goods only a fraction of their swollen oil revenues, suitable investment outlets seem to be the answer. As part of a Middle East settlement arrangements might be made to channel Arab funds into the capital needs—which are bound to be larger than ever—of the international oil companies. The Arabs could even be offered a stake in the nuclear power and/or oil-from-coal/shale programmes of the West. Since the Arabs profess to want to conserve their petroleum assets, this is the way to help do so. Energy is now recognised as a world problem of international concern. It follows that we in Britain cannot hope to be able to sit back and expect the North Sea finds, diplomatic genius or anything else to get us off the hook. Energywise it is only too painfully true that things will never be the same again.
There I quote from Chemistry and Industry, to which I am a regular contributor:
The Arab oil embargo that started with the October Middle East war has opened a Pandora's box of international economic anarchy whose implications have inexorably expanded far beyond settlement of the Arab-Israeli border disputes. With the rapacious example of the oil producers and the vulnerability of highly industrialised nations to raw material supplies as an example, every controller of a scarce commodity from wood pulp to coffee and uranium is likely to follow the trend for the maximum price squeeze in the minimum time, setting off an inflationary spiral that could wreck the world economy. This year could be a period of modest progress and new and better policy formulation. Or it could be an unmitigated disaster.
Thus, Bob Hoty, of Aviation Week.
A debate at this time of night is not the occasion for trying to overcome world


disaster, but, if we are not to have an unmitigated disaster, Heads of Government must get together to make a collective response, perhaps along the lines outlined by Dr. Kissinger. If they do not get together to ask whether it is wise to make sales of this kind and scale to the Arab world, the present leaders of the West will appear in a very unfavourable light in history.

4.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am glad that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has raised this matter this morning. I agree with him about its importance and that had he been raising it 12 hours ago attendance in the House would have been much larger.
I believe that from what I have to say the answers to many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will emerge. I hope that I can put the matter in perspective and show that some of the assumptions made by him and some of the impressions that he has derived from what he has been reading are misleading.
The hon. Gentleman has raised two matters—technical co-operation with Iran and other countries in the Middle East and arms sales. I should like to start by talking about technical co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman knows that our aid policy towards Iran and other countries in the area, as in other parts of the world, is based upon the desire to help the Governments in that area to improve the quality of life of their people. This manifests itself in many ways, varying from country to country, according to the widely differing conditions in that part of the world.
There are, as the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, extremely rich countries with vast oil resources which are in people's minds at present, and countries with no oil resources and only limited material wealth where a great deal is needed to develop them and raise the standard of life of their people.
I should like to mention briefly what we do, before going on to deal more specifically with some of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman.
We do not give capital aid to any of the oil-rich States in the Middle East, but we provide a great deal of technical assistance, which varies according to the needs of the various countries, usually in the form of advisers and instructors in a wide range of technical and educational spheres, often with supporting equipment.
Outside the aid programme, which is financed by Her Majesty's Government, there is often recourse, especially in the richer countries, to the services of specialist departments and technical institutions in this country and recruitment of experts, through such organisations as the Crown Agents, on a repayment basis. In general terms our policy is to help in the development of countries in the area by sharing with them our expertise in pursuance of the requests which they make to us and to the extent to which we are able to meet them.
Iran is the major recipient of technical assistance to the oil-producing States. Technical assistance is given in the form of experts, equipment in support of experts, and training fellowships. About 30 British experts are currently in post in Iran serving on contracts of about two years' duration. A number of short-term advisory visits have been arranged. About 140 Iranian trainees have received fellowships in the United Kingdom in 1973.
The bulk of the remainder of the technical assistance programme for oil-producing countries in the area for the current year is provided to Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In addition we give technical assistance to Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Lebanon, and the Yemen Arab Republic. We have also made a capital aid loan to Egypt of £15 million spread over five years from 1972, interest-free loans up to £10 million to Jordan to help with its three-year development plan, and to Sudan a £15·7 million programme spread over four years from 1973, which includes the provision for technical assistance to which I have referred. As the House knows, we are in touch with some of the oil-producing countries in the area which are seeking ways of involving the oil-consuming countries in their development, and that brings me more directly on to one of the main points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked particularly about the recent mission to Iran, led by a member of the Department of Trade and Industry. We are now at an advanced stage in the negotiations with the Iranian Government for additional supplies of oil to this country in exchange for the supply of certain commodities to Iran. These negotiations are taking place against the background of our excellent relations with Iran and after a series of extremely useful discussions between Ministers of the two Governments. As a result of the work of the Anglo-Iranian Joint Ministerial Commission set up in 1972 a highly successful investment conference was held in Iran in November last, attended on our side by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and a delegation of officials and senior British businessmen led by Lord Thorneycroft.

Mr. Dalyell: At the meeting with Mr. Ansari and other Ministers, was the case put for technical co-operation and trade, rather than arms supplies? Did the Government positively put that case?

Mr. Blaker: The discussions were about technical co-operation and trade, and I shall elaborate on that in a moment.
The result of the conference was the announcement of participation by British firms in joint ventures with Iranian partners to an overall value of about £250 million and covering a wide range of fields from steel to banking and from agriculture to diesel engines.
The hon. Member referred to the visit to London of Mr. Ansari, the Iranian Minister of Economy. During that visit the Minister put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the proposition that in return for assured supplies to Iran in 1974 of certain commodities the Iranians would make available to the United Kingdom Government supplies of oil over and above what the United Kingdom could expect to receive from the consortium. The additional oil would come from oil available to the National Iranian Oil Company under the current agreement with the consortium.
As a preliminary, the Iranian Government communicated to us a "shopping list" of commodities in which they were

interested and which included notably steel, chemicals, artificial fibres, tyres and paper.
The present position on these negotiations is that a mixed official and business negotiation team under the leadership of Mr. Carey of the Department of Trade and Industry went to Teheran on 5th January. This team put forward positive proposals for the export of goods worth considerably more than £100 million which the Iranians are now considering. We believe that it will be possible to conclude the negotiations on terms acceptable to both sides. We have every hope that the proposed deal will result in a substantial additional quantity of oil becoming available to the United Kingdom, and that, I am sure, will be welcome to the House.
I should like to pay tribute to the speed with which the United Kingdom firms concerned responded to this initiative, as a result of which we were able to put forward a substantial offer in a very short period of time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to other countries in the Middle East. The House will be aware from reports in the Press that Her Majesty's Government have entered into, or are about to enter into, agreements with a number of other Middle East countries for the long-term supply of oil.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Saudi Arabia. The background is that several Middle East oil producers, notably Saudi Arabia, have made it clear in recent months that in future increased production of oil will be undertaken only in exchange for assistance from the developed world in the building up of their industrial and economic base. This is very relevant. I think it is something which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is desirable, and I agree with him, because these States realise that what is in many cases their sole natural resource is a wasting asset. They are therefore, quite understandably, seeking incentives from the industrialised world not to keep their oil in the ground. They wish to exploit their resources in such a way that future generations in their countries will not accuse them of squandering their heritage. Hence the proposals for industrialisation, which should ensure for


the countries concerned an economic infrastructure which is capable of withstanding any drying-up of the oil wells.
It is clearly to our global trading advantage if we can help to develop these countries industrially ourselves. British industry will benefit from participation in the industrial projects concerned and new markets for our consumer goods will develop as the standard of living in these countries rises.
With that general consideration in mind, and the more immediate need to secure long-term supplies of oil at reasonable prices, we have been exploring with several Arab oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia and some Gulf States, the possibility of participation in industrial development. The initiative for these discussions came in each case from the oil producer concerned.
In addition, in a period of continuing oil supply shortage, it would be irresponsible from our point of view for us not to do all we can to increase available supplies. It is oil from increased production that we are seeking from these arrangements. This will be not only to our advantage but to that of our EEC partners.
Discussions with Saudi Arabia have been going on for some weeks but we are some way yet from a successful conclusion. Contrary to Press reports, no agreement has yet been signed. All I can say at this stage—I stress this—is that there is no question of an arms-for-oil deal.
One of the main problems is, of course, price. Like most consumer countries, we are very concerned at the recent large increases in the posted price of oil. This will have an early impact on all Western economies.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Minister says that there is no question of an arms-for-oil deal, am I being told that I am wrong to suggest that the Anderson mission of December to Riyadh was unimportant?

Mr. Blaker: What I am saying to the hon. Member is that Mr. Anderson's visit was not connected with an arms-for-oil deal.
I was saying that one of the main problems is price, and we are very concerned at the recent large increases in

the posted price of oil. We are not in favour of any bilateral deal which might accelerate price increases. This question, among many others, makes the recent proposal by Dr. Kissinger for an energy action group most timely. We have warmly welcomed that initiative, which I hope will make a significant contribution to the forging of consumer-producer relations. Co-operation at this level, involving not only the developed but the developing consumer countries, is essential if we are to establish a rational and equitable framework for the supply of oil in the future.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the EEC and I should like to say a word about that. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Community colleagues agreed at Copenhagen on the importance of entering into negotiations with the oil-producing States on comprehensive arrangements for the economic and industrial development of these countries and for stable energy supplies to the members of the EEC at reasonable prices. Her Majesty's Government entirely endorse this policy.
We have, however, been accused in certain quarters of pursuing solely a policy of national self-interest in discussing bilateral agreements with certain Middle Eastern States. I should like to take this opportunity of rejecting that criticism because it fails to take account of three factors. The first is that the necessary machinery for co-operation of this kind between the EEC and the producers simply does not exist at present. Secondly, we had to respond to the oil producers' initiative if we were not to lose their confidence. Thirdly, we hope by these arrangements to increase oil production and thus the total amount of oil available globally. Bilateral deals are therefore not incompatible with a Community approach to the question.
We are exploring and shall continue to explore the possibility that what the producers have to offer can eventually be developed within a Community as opposed to a national framework. There may indeed be early scope for Community involvement if, for example, certain projects in the Middle East prove too large for any one member to handle.
In short, the world's energy problems are far too serious to be solved by this


country alone, or even by Europe alone. We strongly support President Nixon's imaginative proposals for a meeting in Washington, which we see as an opportunity to launch a new pattern of relationships with oil producers from which they will receive the industrial and economic development that they need and the consumers will get oil supplies at reasonable prices. The Community has agreed to accept President Nixon's invitation to take part in a conference on 11th February in Washington. We support the development of a Community energy policy on the lines set forth at Copenhagen. Meanwhile, we are making our own contribution to the evolution of these new relationships by exploring with certain producer countries how in the actual circumstances of each country mutually advantageous arrangements can best be made.
I deal now with another question that the hon. Member raised when he asked what was the purpose of the visit by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) to the Gulf at present. The visit was arranged many months ago, well before the oil crisis and the hostilities in the Middle East last October. No Minister from this Department has visited all the Gulf States since the change in our relationship with them in 1971.
Originally, the main purpose of the visit was to demonstrate the continuing British interest in an area of importance to us, following the termination of our special treaty responsibilities. Recent events clearly gave the visit a rather different slant. Oil matters and related questions of producer-consumer relationships are bound to bulk larger than had been expected earlier. It is not, however, the purpose of the visit to conclude specific deals on oil supplies.
I have said that there is no connection between any of the contacts, to which I have referred and about which the hon. Member asked, with these Middle Eastern countries and the sale of arms to them. I now come to our policy in relation to the sale of arms.
It is well known that Iran is our ally in CENTO and an important purchaser of arms and that there is a significant British defence project for Saudi Arabia. Sales of arms to these countries have been

made over a considerable period and are not the result of any particular recent initiative. I think that that answers one of the hon. Member's questions. It is not our policy to reveal details of individual arms sales to other countries, as we consider that such disclosure is primarily a matter for the customer. The hon. Member knows that that is our policy.
He conceded that it had been the policy of successive Governments to encourage the export of defence equipment taking into account in each case the political, strategic and security considerations involved for the United Kingdom. Defence sales make an important contribution to our balance of payments. The total for 1973–74 should reach £405 million.
A defence arms sales organisation in the Ministry of Defence was established by the previous administration in 1966 to assist and advise the arms industry, and the House will recall the statement by the then Minister of Defence, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), on 25th January 1966 when he announced the setting up of this organisation. I respect what the hon. Gentleman said about his views on that matter. But it is right for me to remind the House that that important intiative was taken in 1966 by the previous administration.
When the hostilities broke out in the Middle East in October of last year, the British Government called for an immediate cease-fire and suspended all shipments of arms to the battlefield. We did that because we considered it inconsistent to call for an immediate end to the fighting and yet to continue to send arms to the area of conflict. This policy is kept under study in the light of the developing situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Dalyell: To say that because there is no EEC machinery for dealing with the Arab world and, therefore, to imply that we cannot do anything about a situation in which Germany, France, Britain and Italy separately go there to promote arms sales seems very unsatisfactory. I thank the Minister for most of his answers, but I should like to give him notice that I shall be putting a Question to the Prime Minister later today returning to this subject. From


the point of view of one who voted pro-Market on 28th October 1971, it is not good enough to say that because there is no machinery, and for two other reasons, we cannot do something about our individual delegations to promote arms sales.

Mr. Blaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has put what I have said in the wrong context. But I take note of the fact that he proposes to raise the matter later today.
Summing up, the Government regard it as highly desirable in our long-term interests to raise the general standard of living of the countries in the area to which we are referring by helping those countries with their development. We shall continue, therefore, to explore with those countries ways in which we can co-operate to our mutual advantage. At the same time, we shall continue to consider requests for defence equipment from those countries in the light of our political, strategic and security interests.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RETIREMENT PENSIONERS

4.22 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: With the possibility of a General Election in the next few weeks and knowing that there is not even a postal vote in the subject that I wish to raise as No. 12 on the list of subjects, and knowing that I would be called to speak at this witching early hour of the morning, I was sorely tempted to cross my name off the list. But I was dreaming recently that I was at a New Year party at which "Auld Lang Syne" was being sung, and my mind suddenly switched from "Auld Lang Syne" to the many overseas pensioners abroad. I then realised that I must come to the House to make once again a plea on their behalf to the Government.
I raised this problem over a year ago in a debate on a previous Consolidated Fund Bill in order to get something done for the 41,000 retirement pensioners scattered around the world who, having left the country, get no increment in their pension or, indeed, any Christmas bonus. I must underline, as the Minister will no doubt say, that of the total of retirement

pensioners overseas the largest proportion live in South Africa, about 6,700. But there are over 3,000 in Spain.
Since I spoke on this subject in December 1972, unfortunately nothing very much has been done for these people. I am glad to say that I was drawn first on the list on that previous occasion. I apologise to my hon. Friend for having brought him to the House at this hour. However, even joining the EEC has helped these people only at the margins.
The greatest hope is to get some form of reciprocal arrangement and for some time the Minister responsible has been holding out hope of reaching a reciprocal agreement soon with Spain. I questioned the Prime Minister about that in October and earlier. A certain amount of hope was held out at that time.
The chief reason for raising this subject now is that the Minister will be able to report on the present state of negotiations and perhaps say why the negotiations have been dragging out for such along time, particularly when many of the pensioners living in Spain are hard hit, as are many of those living abroad, by the falling value of the pound. When does the Minister hope to reach agreement with Spain?
Is it not possible to start negotiations with South Africa on some form of reciprocal arrangement? I have had talks with South African senators and with retirement pensioners from South Africa. I am sure we could do more than we are at Government level on behalf of these pensioners. It is particularly important to do so because of the increased burden they bear. I have the case of a pensioner in South Africa asking whether it would be possible to come back to a home for the elderly in Kent. My hon. Friend the Minister knows of this case and has replied to me about it. I am sure that this is an indication of what we can expect in the future. It might be cheaper to pay a periodic increase in the retirement pension than face an influx of elderly people returning to this country because they can no longer afford to live abroad, and putting an additional strain on our health and welfare services.
Most of these pensioners have spent the best part of their working lives in the United Kingdom and others have spent


the time working in the Commonwealth for British concerns, private or Government. Nearly all will have contributed to the national insurance scheme. Surely they should get the increments in the flat-rate retirement pension. The scheme has been reviewed by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Hon. Members on that Committee say that they are aware that the present practice of not paying the increase has been reviewed by successive Governments and that any increase would be met by people resident in Britain. The cost would be about £11 million.
I know that some of that money could come to North-East Essex but, like me, my constituents regard this as a debt of honour and whether a pensioner is in poor circumstances in North-East Essex or living abroad it is right that we should look after these British citizens in the same way that we would look after our constituents. The Treasury may say callously that it will cost £11 million and therefore it cannot worry about it, but from the point of view of looking after elderly people who are in need, the Government should look more seriously at this proposal.
The Committee says that it is of the opinion that it must produce a sense of unfairness that persons who by their work and contributions here have qualified for retirement pension from this country should be denied an increase in that pension because they go and live abroad. That sense of unfairness must be all the greater because those who live in countries with which there are reciprocal agreements receive an increase.
Since I raised the subject a year ago I can vouch for the sense of injustice felt by those retirement pensioners, who are also hit by the lowering of the value of the pound. I have heard from many of them, and have forwarded some of the letters to my hon. Friend so that he can know of their strong feelings.
Perhaps these days we should welcome any reluctance by the Treasury to increase its expenditure, especially across the exchanges. But is not an insurance element also involved in retirement pension contributions? I am certain that it is. Whilst it can be said that there is a case for the Government attitude, I am sure

that the Select Committee was right to say that the Government must seriously think, as soon as they can, of being more generous to retirement pensioners living abroad, particularly in view of the changes in the value of money.
I and many other people believe that a debt of honour is involved. If the Minister cannot now meet it by paying the increases, I hope that he will be able to speed ahead with the negotiations with Spain and start negotiations with South Africa. I am sure that that is a sphere in which we might be able to help as well.

4.32 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I know of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) in this subject. He raised it in a Consolidated Fund Bill debate last year, on that occasion at a rather more civilised hour. Despite the hour, I am grateful to him for raising this important matter. I hope to be able at least to convey some modest progress over some parts of the field.
As my hon. Friend will know, national insurance widows' and retirement pensions are paid anywhere in the world. As he has pointed out, however, they are paid at the rate current when the pensioner left this country or when he qualified for his pension if he was then already living abroad. Subsequent increases in the rate of pension payable to pensioners in this country are not paid to pensioners residing abroad unless they are living in a country with which we have been able to make an appropriate reciprocal agreement on social security.
The policy of not paying pension increases unconditionally to pensioners who have gone to live abroad has been followed by successive Governments on the grounds that national insurance is a social security system designed primarily for people in this country and that the benefit rates are related to social policies and economic conditions here. Moreover, where benefit rates are increased the cost of increasing pensions already in payment falls mainly on contributors and employers in this country, and it has never been accepted that they should also bear the cost of paying increases unconditionally for pensioners who have chosen to live abroad.
Those are the general policy considerations, but inevitably, as in any other matter of social security, there are cost implications, too. There are more than 150,000 people drawing retirement and widows' pensions abroad, and the cost of bringing all pensions up to the rate that would be payable if the recipients were in this country would be about £13½ million a year. My hon. Friend will realise that this is one of the competing priorities for the resources available for the social security services as a whole.
Where it has been possible to make reciprocal agreements with other countries, our pensioners in those countries have been enabled to receive the pension increases. Arrangements on these lines now benefit pensioners in a good many countries—namely, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Cyprus, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Irish Republic, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jersey, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands. Switzerland, Turkey, the United States of America and Yugoslavia. The arrangements cover about one-third of our overseas pensioners.
The list of countries which I have given shows the progress which has been made over the years, and in many cases in fairly recent years, in extending reciprocal arrangements. At the end of 1972, which is the latest date for which I have the full figures, there were slightly over 153,000 National Insurance pensioners receiving pensions abroad. Of that number, just over 53,000 were receiving unfrozen pensions. They were in the countries which I have mentioned. They benefit from the now annual increases in the same way as pensioners in this country, by virtue of reciprocal agreements.
That leaves of balance of approximately 100,000 pensioners receiving frozen pensions. By far the majority of that balance are in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. In Australia, where there are nearly 45,000 of our pensioners, and in New Zealand, where there are nearly 15,000, the pension provision is by way of a non-contributory residence-based system. Australian pensions are subject to a test of means. Under the reciprocal agreements with Australia and New Zealand, residence in the United Kingdom is

treated as residence in Australia or New Zealand. That means that some of our pensioners receive old-age pensions from the authorities of those countries.
In cases where our pensioners qualify for a pension from Australia or New Zealand by virtue of these agreements, most would be no better off if our pensions were unfrozen because the other country, when assessing the rate of pension, takes account of the rate of British pension in payment. Similarly it would not help those who may be receiving the means-tested South African pension. There are over 7,000 British pensioners in South Africa.
If we take into account the countries with which we have reciprocal agreements where the increases are being paid, and if we take into account, too, the large group of pensioners in the countries which I have mentioned, many of whom are eligible for a pension from the country in which they are now residing, I recognise that there are left at least 33,000 pensioners living in more than 100 other countries. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's intention to reduce that number wherever possible by seeking further comprehensive reciprocal agreements with countries where there are sizeable numbers of our pensioners.
My hon. Friend mentioned Spain, as he did on the last occasion when he raised this matter. We now have nearly 4,000 pensioners living in Spain. Negotiations are in train for reaching an agreement with Spain which would provide, amongst other things, for the unfreezing of our pensions in Spain. If the negotiations are successful, and I very much hope that they will be, the agreement will provide further benefits for those who move between the two countries. For example, it would enable account to be taken of periods of insurance in the other country in determining entitlement to benefit. It would avoid duplicate liability for contributions where workers from one country go to work in another country. Discussions are at present taking place and although my hon. Friend has chosen this very moment to raise this matter, I hope that he will agree that it would be inappropriate for me to say more about them now.
I can assure him, however, that we are anxious that a comprehensive agreement should be reached. We shall press on


with it as fast as we can, but we believe there is great value in trying, in reciprocal agreements of this kind, to get a comprehensive range of agreement over the whole area. For this reason discussions often take longer than any of us desire.
The situation in South Africa, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, is rather more difficult. We are speaking of 7,500 pensioners who reside there, but I am afraid that I do not see any prospect of reaching a reciprocal agreement with South Africa. The reason, essentially, is the difference between their scheme and ours.
The South African scheme is non-contributory providing a pension only for residents of limited needs and they vary widely according to whether the beneficiary is white, coloured, or African. The rate for whites is six times higher than that for Africans. With such variation of provision for old age, there appears little likelihood of being able to reach a reciprocal agreement.
My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulty which has arisen because of the depreciation of sterling. I recognise the difficulty which has affected our people abroad, when the income, from whatever source, is paid from this country. The rates of national insurance pension are laid down in legislation expressing amounts in sterling, but here, too, one can fairly say that those who are covered by annual increases are receiving some compensation for the decline in the value of sterling. In the case of some countries where there are large numbers of our pensioners—I am thinking particularly of Australia and New Zealand—one can say that about half our pensioners are not suffering as a result of the loss of value of sterling because they are getting pensions from the countries in which they are living. I therefore recognise that there is a problem, but it is fair to point out that it has not unduly affected all of those pensioners with whom we are concerned in this debate.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that he felt that because pensioners had in many cases worked for long periods in this country and contributed to our arrangements, they should be entitled to the full increases. I know my lion. Friend will recognise that one of the

counter-arguments one can use is that the money they have contributed is very small in relation to the amount which they are likely to draw in pension. My hon. Friend is familiar with the pay-as-you-go basis of the scheme. The amount paid is in most cases a very small part of the pension which the people concerned will actually draw, so we are faced with a situation in which the bulk of the pension, even a frozen pension, is being met by employers and by existing contributors in this country.
No pensioner, whether at home or abroad, has contributed anything like the amount actuarially needed to finance his pension and will within 18 months or so recover by way of pension the amount paid in contributions. It is as small a period as that. Pensioners overseas are certainly not deprived of the value of their contributions. They receive the pension their contributions have earned, and, as I have said, it would be unfair to contributors and employers in this country for them to have to meet the cost of providing increases unconditionally to those who have settled abroad.
We have carefully reviewed the longstanding policy of paying pensions universally abroad but only paying increases to pensioners in those countries with which we have been able to reach appropriate reciprocal agreements, and we have concluded that we should continue to maintain this policy whilst attempting to reach agreements wherever this is possible. As I mentioned, to unfreeze pensions unconditionally would add £13½ million per year to the cost. Therefore we feel, for this and for the other reasons which I have mentioned, that the better course is not only to seek agreements which serve the interests of pensioners in particular by allowing our rates of pension to be unfrozen but to help contributors and beneficiaries in general in the much more comprehensive way which is possible when we have an agreement. For example, it enables the periods of insurance in the two countries to be combined to determine entitlements to benefit so that benefits and pensions may be paid at a higher rate or in circumstances where they might otherwise not be payable at all.
Currently, negotiations are in hand with Spain, in which, I hope, we shall be able


to reach an early conclusion, with Canada and with Norway, which, if successful could lead to unfreezing our pensions in those countries.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend, although he has not got the answer he hoped for, will feel that at least we are making progress with reciprocal agreements, and I hope that he will feel, in the light of the many calls on resources for pensions, that pressing forward with such agreements is the best way of making progress.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (WALES)

4.48 a.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Wales is gracing this debate with his presence. He has made frequent appearances here in the last 10 hours or so—unlike that gentleman of Hereford who in the circumstances does not perhaps curse himself for being in bed with 'flu. In other circumstances, of course, the Minister of State might have been here, but personally I am glad in any case to see the Secretary of State.
It is unfortunate that the subject of the debate, a subject of vital interest to my constituency, has to be raised against the background of the miners' dispute—I represent a mining constituency—and many other problems which afflict our society in general. The one matter of universal concern to Bedwellty and the valleys of South Wales is that of housing. It affects everybody. It seeps into every home in the constituency. It affects people of all ages and all income brackets. I have old-age pensioners who yearn for purpose-built bungalows they know they will probably never have.
There are improvement grant applicants who are despairing that their improvements will ever be completed ; private house buyers who dread the continually rising mortgage rates ; council house tenants facing rent rises as a result of the Housing Finance Act with increasing hopelessness, since they sometimes take as much as £5 or £6 from their restricted pay packets ; leaseholders infuriated by the manufactured delays by ground landlords who simply refuse to come into line with the Leasehold Reform Act.
There are NCB tenants who have lived in mining villages for 40 years and are becoming increasingly depressed by the decay that they see in their communities. This is not directly to be blamed on the Estates Department of the NCB, which operates on limited resources, but it means that what were model villages when they were built in the 'twenties and' thirties would, but for the efforts of tenants, have become derelict slums a long time ago.
Most directly and heart-breakingly, there is the problem of the young marrieds, or the young engaged couples who face the hopeless prospect of beginning married life without a home and, even worse, without the hope of having their own home. Superlatives are frequently used in this place, but to try to articulate the fear and despair felt among these people, I can only say that I leave my surgeries emotionally drained after facing young couples completely bewildered by the fact that in 1974 there is absolutely no prospect, as relatively prosperous, sometimes highly-trained young people, of their having their own home within two or three or even four or five years.
To face those young people, frequently of my own age or a couple of years younger, some of them with similar family responsibilities to my own, and to try to communicate with them that it is not the council's fault or that I as an MP can be of no direct assistance, when they have already been to the mortgage company or the bank manager and found the doors locked in their faces and learned that there is no question of a public or private house being put at their disposal for years to come, is a harrowing experience for those who have to give them that kind of news, and it must be a disastrous experience for them.
The frequency with which these cases come to my notice amounts to tens if not scores of times a week and must have amounted to hundreds over the three and a half years that I have represented this constituency, as a consequence of the continuance of two Government policies. The first is the stagnation of council house building in my area as a result of a reduction in subsidies, a refusal to stimulate local authority housing and house building and, of course, the imposition


of a totally unrealistic housing cost yardstick.
These are complicated issues. They are not the stuff of Saturday morning surgeries, but in trying to explain their predicament to them, these are the things that I have to tell my constituents. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to provide me with some novel approaches to this problem, so that these young people can begin to understand why they cannot have a council house in the reasonably near future.
The other policy that has contributed to the deep crisis faced by the people of my constituency is the benevolent neutrality with which the Government have regarded the fantastic rise in house prices over the last three and a half years.
These policies—or in some cases the lack of policies—have meant that the combined council house waiting list of people who want houses right now, who are without reasonable accommodation of any kind, numbers over 800 names between the four urban district councils in my constituency. One council cannot undertake before 1978 to house people who go on to the waiting list now. The very best area has a housing list with a two-year wait. When the authorities come together on 1st April to form Myniddislwyn Council the problems of the worst areas will be imported into the areas which are relatively free from problems.
Not only will there be the difficulties arising from overcrowding, multi-occupation, split families and domestic quarrels, but the prospect of a divided community, with people claiming preference on the basis of being born and raised in a particular village. Those are the prospects in the public housing sector.
In the private housing sector in 1970 a modern three-bedroomed semi-detached house on one of the small estates in my constituency cost between £3,500 and £4,200, dependent on the situation of the house. This week, in 1974, that same house would cost between £7,500 and £8,000. In 1970 a three-bedroomed terraced house—rather romantically called a miner's cottage—cost between £500 and £1,200, dependent on its size and situation. Now, even the meanest three-bedroomed terrace house in my constituency

in the remotest area would cost £2,500 and at the southern end of the constituency, in Risca and Cross Keys, which are becoming part of Newport's commuter belt, there is not a house for sale under £4,500, regardless of its state of dereliction and lack of modern amenities. To compound the situation there is no council house building, and private building has dried up to a trickle. Those builders who have made fat profits for the last three-and-a-half-years are sitting in their well-lined nests disregarding the needs of the community from which they have made a fine living in the recent past.
Youngsters have to face price inflation, the lack of council houses, the prospect of a long wait and high council house rents caused by the Housing Finance Act. That is why there is an increased demand for private housing. Three years ago there was an apparently limitless supply of 50-, 60- and 70-year old terraced accommodation. Because of the demand that supply has now virtually dried up, and with that process has come the fantastic increase in prices.
All houses have been put beyond the range of workers in my constituency by price inflation. For example, a top-paid miner earns £37.50 per week on the day shift and £44 a week if he works nights regularly. That means that he could, theoretically, raise a mortgage of £5,000 which would involve him in monthly payments of about £50 or weekly payments of £12.50. No one can afford to pay £12·50 a week for his house on a wage of £37·50 or £44. That is the kind of average pay being earned in my constituency.
People cannot afford any kind of private accommodation so they turn to the council and find that there are no council houses. The councils are apologetic. They explain the reasons why there is no housing and the reasons for the length of the waiting list. Then, when some form of accommodation is found, with a generous relative, with all the risks attached to that, the council has to explain to the sub-tenant that overcrowding must not take place or he will have to be evicted. They have to explain that sub-tenancy is a fragile protection and that it will die when the main tenant dies or leaves the district. The family dare not move from that area,


even by 100 yards, for fear of disqualifying itself from any chance of getting council housing in the area in future.
These young people have fallen into the housing trap. A few years ago we spoke of a new phenomenon called the poverty trap. Here, because of the conjunction of Government policies and market forces working in a direction directly contrary to the interests of the community, these people have fallen into the housing trap. They start married life in the trap and it requires an armourplated marriage to survive the trials of those early years. Many homes are broken even before they have been made.
Obviously most couples survive those years but far too many end their marriages within a few years for no other reason than that they share their homes, living with parents and relatives. They are ultimately unwanted, quarrels break out and there is domestic crisis. One or other of the partners leaves. Perhaps there are children, who are deserted and left with grandparents. The whole business of delinquency and illness starts. In my constituency the root of delinquency and illness lies in inadequate housing accommodation. It is not like illnesses of previous years, which came from insanitary conditions, overcrowding and slums. It is a result of the mental strain that derives from the fact that people have no adequate housing. That is the cost we are paying for leaving the business of housing people to the market, for not protecting people by public expenditure, for disregarding the needs of the community.
Many of the people falling into this category are, as I have said, young people. Their whole view of life, society, the country, their representatives, of the whole business of democracy, without any exaggeration, is tainted even before, in some cases, they have voted. It is a consequence of society being unable to provide them with the one thing they need to make a perfect life, somewhere to live.
The councils are now reaching a point as hopeless as that of the would-be tenant. They have a deep feeling of inadequacy. They have strictly to apply their tenancy rules, even at the risk of seeming

inhuman, to provide a measure of fairness of treatment. They have to evict a sub-tenant because she is overcrowding her mother's home. This strict application of the rules has been forced on the councils by the inadequacy of Government policy. It makes them angry when they know that they are bearing the brunt of public criticism and carrying all the responsibility for inadequate housing in their areas when it is not their fault. To add to that they have the ignominy of having to enforce fair rents which they have played no part in fixing and against which they cannot appeal.
I believe that there is no answer from the private sector to the crisis that we face. In proportionate terms, the crisis in my own area is comparable to that in the great cities. It is the basis of delinquency and illness. It has the effect of deprivation that the removal of any basic necessity has in a modern society.
These are the homes of the kids who go wrong and of the married couples who end up in the divorce courts. They know cruelty, conflict and mental illness. That is the price that we pay for not having a civilised housing policy.
In the last generation, when a crisis of this nature was recognised, emergency action was taken. I was brought up in a prefabricated bungalow. Sadly, those bungalows in Tredegar are still standing, 17 years after they were supposed to be knocked down. At the time, they met a desperate social need. But action of that kind will not solve the problem in the long term. We need a massive commitment to public housing-building. That is the only way to root out from the start the several other ills which are bound to afflict our society.

5.6 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) quoted from Henry V when he referred to my hon. Friend the Minister of State as a gentleman in England now abed. My hon. Friend is truly in bed, I hope only temporarily indisposed. But I feel sure that he does not feel himself accursed that he is not here. In any event, I am delighted to take his place.
In the course of this Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, we have already had a debate on housing in Wales,


so perhaps I might borrow another quotation from the same play and say that I am happy once more to go into the breach.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I reply only briefly to his many points, the hour being late. He spoke first of the waiting lists in his constituency and of what he referred to as the stagnation of council house building. He will realise that a housing programme cannot be completed overnight to satisfy today's demand. The necessary housing programmes should have been instituted three or four years ago.
The Government's recent activities in housing have been directed to ensuring that adequate programmes are in hand to meet current and future needs. There are grounds for optimism. The number of house-building schemes approved at tender stage by the Welsh Office for 1973 is more than twice that for 1972 and the highest figure since 1969.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that we have never restricted the number of houses which an authority might wish to provide. Even on cost control, that much maligned instrument the housing cost yardstick, rendered more flexible by the special market allowance which we introduced in November 1972, has not impeded progress. The number of cases where the Welsh Office has had to refuse approval for a scheme on cost grounds can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I mean that to be taken literally, since the figure is in fact four, and the reasons for refusal were explained.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that housing has been specifically excluded from the recent cut-back in expenditure on public sector programmes which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about inadequate National Coal Board houses. I do not know the circumstances in his constituency. The normal improvement procedures apply to National Coal Board houses as to any other houses. The improvement of National Coal Board houses is proceeding and substantial numbers have been improved. In some areas the local authorities have taken over National Coal Board houses, on agreed terms, and have improved them. I hope

that every opportunity will be taken to keep up the improvement of NCB houses. I cannot at the moment see that any measures additional to those already available are called for.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the concern of the aged in his constituency. About one in four or five of applications for building approval reaching the Welsh Office is for special housing for the elderly. We attach great importance to this aspect of housing and encourage local authorities to plan for the elderly.
Last September I opened an admirable housing scheme in Rhymney. Cardiff opened its first scheme last week. Three of the building schemes which won awards in the Welsh housing design competition for 1973 were especially for the elderly. Those were schemes at Llan-sannan, Llanerchymedd and Abercarn. This is an important part of our housing policy. We certainly give every encouragement to local authorities to plan for housing for the elderly.
The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to improvement grants. He will appreciate that I have already dealt with this matter in an earlier debate. Therefore, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not go into the subject again. I went into it in some detail yesterday evening.
The cost of private housing is important. The hon. Gentleman was right to lay stress on that matter. The Government are doing all that they can, in consultation with the building industry, to control the cost of house building. To help the intending purchaser who is confronted with high house prices, the Government have taken steps to make mortgages more readily available. Option mortgage relief limits have been extended. Discussions with the building societies have had beneficial results, and plans are in hand for special assistance to be given to low-income purchasers.
The hon. Gentleman referred to leaseholds. I do not know whether he has any special point in mind which is not already covered by the Leasehold Reform Act provisions that he outlined. Remedies for disagreements over price and for delay on the part of the freeholder are prescribed in the Act. I can only suggest that any of his constituents who feel aggrieved should consult professional advisers on the position.
Fair rents have been debated again and again over the last two years. I think that the problems are grossly exaggerated. The system of fair rents as a whole is designed to be equitable across the board and to remove anomalies between one local authority and another and one tenant and another. No tenant needs to suffer hardship because his rent is increased under the Act. Rent rebates are generous enough to ensure this. Indeed, some tenants pay less because of the rebates. I have found that, despite some of the suggestions which are made, the Act is operating reasonably well in Wales.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if I have not covered all the many points that he raised. I do not think that he heard the previous debate when I went into more detail and said that the Government have carried through a wide-ranging housing programme and have laid the foundations for further development in future. The measures that we have already taken are to be strongly reinforced by the further powers that are proposed in the forthcoming legislation that will be laid before the House in a very short time.
The encouraging figures of house-building programmes planned by local authorities, which I mentioned, indicate that we can look forward to a period of increasing housing supply. This is a very important subject and a matter of great concern to everyone in public life, and I know that we are indebted to the hon. Member for Bedwellty for raising the matter so clearly tonight.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State will be disturbed to know that this debate almost did not take place. I was trapped in a lift on my way to the Chamber. I thought that perhaps I ought to refer the lift to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a breach of privilege or obstruction of a Member on his way to the Chamber, but when I made that point over the phone to the custodians of the

House the doors immediately opened. I am sure the Minister would care deeply if the prison report for 1972 were not debated in this House, even at this late hour and on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The purpose of the debate is to consider certain aspects of the 1972 report ; to consider, in the light of the report, whether there are various ways still open to us further to reduce the prison population—and I shall argue that there are ; to consider whether there is any way in which we can prevent a new upturn in the prison population which the Government still seem to expect ; and, finally, to consider how far, in the light of the report, the objective of the Home Secretary, which he stated last year at the NACRO Conference, to keep people out of prison wherever possible is being fulfilled.
Necessarily, I shall have to return to some themes that I have raised in the House before, particularly in a parallel debate two years ago, also on a Consolidated Fund Bill, when I initiated a debate on the prison report for 1970. Fortunately, since then new evidence has become available so I shall not just be repeating myself.
There are, fortunately—and I most warmly welcome this—certain favourable facts brought to our attention by the report. The first is the continuing fall in the prison population, and this fall is in respect of a period before the coming into operation of the 1972 Criminal Justice Act and before the coming into operation of the experiments in noncustodial treatment associated with that Act. The prison population is still falling, but it must still be said that it is and remains unnecessarily high.
The second favourable fact that emerges is that there is less overcrowding in prisons. According to the recently published White Paper on public expenditure, there has been a reduction in the number of prisoners required to sleep three in a cell from 10,000 to 4,000 over the last three years, but there is still far too much overcrowding.
Thirdly, the report draws attention to some change in sentencing practices. It says in paragraph 5 on page 3:


In 1970 there were 216 adult males received into prison per 1,000 found guilty of indictable offences, compared with 206 per 1,000 in the following year
and the report goes on to say that the trend seems to be continuing in 1972.
But again one must here enter a qualification. One cannot rely on this trend continuing, partly because of the principle of flexibility in sentencing that we have debated in this House, and on which the Government insist to an exaggerated degree, and partly because we do not know how far this improvement in sentencing trends is due to knowledge in the courts of the fact of prison overcrowding and whether that trend might change if prison overcrowding were itself reduced as a result of the prison building programme.
Moreover, when one analyses the prison population it is clear that the rate of fall is too slow. There is still the expectation, to which I have referred, that the prison population will show an upward trend again although to less horrifying figures than were anticipated in previous years.
Certain questions arise. There has been this marked fall in the forward estimates. It is worth drawing the attention of the House to the extent of the fall. The Public Expenditure White Paper to 1976–77 stated that the main assumption for formulating the prison building programme was an increase in the prison population from 48,800 to 62,250. For the following year—1977–78—the White Paper gave as the main assumption an increase from 47,850 to 59,350. This year's White Paper shows a drastic fall. The main assumption in the Public Expenditure White Paper is now an increase to 1978–79 from 43,400 to 47,600—in other words, about 12,000 less than in the previous year's White Paper.
What is the effect of this change in estimate on the prison building programme? The White Paper to 1978–79 assumes the completion of just over 11,000 new places within the period compared with 14,000 envisaged previously. Recently, however, we have had public expenditure cuts announced. In an answer to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 21st December 1973 it was stated that there would be cuts of

£18 million on capital programmes and £10 million on the procurement of goods and services".
It was also stated that
The main effect will be to reduce considerably new building for the courts, police, prisons and fire services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December 1973 ; Vol. 866, c. 462.]
Here we are interested in the prisons, and I should like the Minister of State to give us more information on the effect on the prison building programme specifically of these further public expenditure cuts and also the effect on the development of new measures of non-custodial treatment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Is the right hon. Gentleman quoting global figures for the Home Office?

Mr. Dell: Yes. The figures I have given are those that were given for the Home Office on 21st December. They were not broken down as between the different elements in the Home Office programme. That is why I am putting these questions to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
There is another area in which we see favourable and welcome developments. I refer to medical remands, which we have many times discussed together. There has been a substantial fall of about 1,000 in the year under review in the number of medical remands. Nevertheless, it is still disturbing, and the report admits it to be disturbing, that the out-patient facilities which the Home Office provided before this period at Holloway and during 1972 at Preston, Risley and Durham are so little used.
I have previously congratulated the Home Office on taking the step of providing these clinics, and I certainly congratulate the Department again—I regarded this as a definite forward step to reducing the number of medical remands in custody—but the disappointing use of these out-patient clinics continues.
In refreshing my memory of our debate two years ago, I noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when speaking only of Holloway, said:
I am afraid that disappointingly little use has been made of the scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December 1971 ; Vol. 828. c. 789.]


The 1972 report repeats the disappointment which the hon. and learned Gentleman felt two years ago.
In paragraph 77 the report says:
It is disappointing that courts have made so little use of the service at all four establishments and that it is still working well below its capacity".
What is the use of setting up these facilities if they are not used? In 1972, only 39 women were remanded on bail to the out-patient clinic at Holloway and up to 30th November 1973 only 38 appointments had been made to the outpatient clinic at Holloway—according to an answer given to me on 21st December 1973. That is a pathetic record. I was told, too, that there had been 112 appointments to Brixton.
I know from answers to Questions and from other information that how to stimulate this use is being studied and that further efforts are being made, but does not the Home Office consider that further action is now justified to ensure that these facilities are more adequately used?
I turn to social inquiry reports, again a subject that we debated in December 1971 and several times since, particularly because the amount of use of social inquiry reports and the effect of the 1968 circulars had been found to be less satisfactory than the Home Office imagined at the time of the previous debate. What is the situation now? We had an inquiry last year and there has been an answer to a Question that I put. It says that the detailed results of the inquiry are not in a form suitable for publication. Remembering the content of our talk about that inquiry some months ago, I was not particularly surprised to hear that the results of that inquiry were not in a form suitable for publication.
However, there is one decision to be made and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can give us a little more information about it. The decision is that it is not at present necessary or desirable to make rules under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. In other words, social inquiry reports will not be enforced by law in the sort of case covered by the 1968 circulars.
Why was that decision made? Was it made because the picture had been

found to be much better than in the summer of 1972 when this matter was being discussed, or does the Home Office intend still to rely on the type of exhortation which appeared to have failed when these figures were announced in the summer of 1972?
I come to the chapter on unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners. The report welcomes the fact that the relative increase in the average daily population of the prisons between 1968 and 1970 had been stabilised, but the report says:
… the current figures still give grounds for serious concern…".
It is a high figure which still shows that a slight increase has occurred despite what is implied in paragraph 76 for a speeding up in the provision of social inquiry reports and medical reports and so on. However, the Home Office has issued a circular, about which we hear, encouraging the courts to remand for shorter periods when reports can be made in shorter periods. The report says that in the three months following the issue of the circular, about 45 per cent. of all remands in custody under Section 14(3) and Section 26 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 were for 14 days or less.
Unfortunately, what the report does not tell us is what the percentage was previously, so we do not know whether the 45 per cent. was an improvement. As the report speaks for only three months, we do not know whether the improvement, if it was an improvement, continued. Can any light be thrown on this matter and on what action is intended to deal with the matter which the report states is giving serious concern? When will decisions be made on the bail report, which is in the hands of the Minister and is to be published?
I come to the information in the report on the imprisonment of Commonwealth immigrants or immigrants under the aliens orders of 1920–1953 and the Commonwealth Immigration Acts for the period 1962 to 1968. The report shows a very considerable increase in the numbers imprisoned and in the average daily population. Although relative to the total population this is a small factor, it is a serious factor. I find it extraordinary that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in answering certain Questions of fact which I have put to him on this subject, has had


to tell me that the detailed information requested is either not available or could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
Most of these people are not criminal in any sense. Many, presumably, are eventually admitted to the United Kingdom. Many will have suffered considerably before they arrived here. Surely the greatest care is necessary to ensure that people are not imprisoned without proper cause. But there is no information in answer to my Questions.
Among the things which the hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to tell me are whether the number in prison has continued to increase in 1973, how many were bailed before a decision was made, the average duration of imprisonment and what proportion of those imprisoned are eventually allowed entry. On all these subjects the hon. and learned Gentleman professes ignorance. He says that the information is not available or that it could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.
Ignorance of facts such as these can conceal grave injustices and can prevent consideration of alternative ways of handling these matters. It is just not good enough to say that the answers are not available or cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will go further into this matter and make sure that information which is very relevant to the making of policy in this area becomes available to him.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman one question about the answer in which he said that when possible such people are released pending a decision but that often this would not be justified. Who decides whether there should be a release pending a decision and what are the criteria for such a release? When, for example, is it considered justifiable to release a person pending a decision? We do not know what value to put on such a statement as the hon. and learned Gentleman has included in his answer unless we know the facts. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what value to place on his answer unless he knows the facts.
I come next to a rather larger area of the matter of fine defaulters. I refer to this matter because the number of people imprisoned for default of payment of a

fine has been rising since 1968, a year when there was a significant fall following the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The number is now greater than it was 10 years ago, since when there has been a period in which cases of immediate imprisonment have fallen. It includes a large number of people who were fined for non-imprison-able offences. How many people were fined for non-imprisonable offences and then the number imprisoned for non-payment of the fine is not known to the Home Office. That it is not known we gather from an answer which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave on 16th October. These are not people who create any danger to the public or who fall within the Home Secretary's nacro category of those who ought to be imprisoned. They have been fined, many of them for non-imprison-able offences.
What is clear is that the safeguards against imprisonment in default of payment of fine incorporated in the 1967 Act and which had the immediate impact I referred to a moment ago have not prevented the fining of persons who have no money to pay. That fact must be obvious to anyone who has watched the fining of vagrants and drunkeness offenders.
On 11th June 1973 the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me information about a study of weekly incomes of fine defaulters received into Birmingham Prison in 1966. 14 per cent. had no income at all. I doubt whether the situation has changed, even allowing for inflation. Presumably if a person had no money in 1966 inflation would not provide any money now. There is a category of drunkenness offenders which is frequently not given time to pay precisely because it includes a large vagrant element.
An interesting report of the Home Office Research Unit by Mr. Paul Softley, "A Survey of Fine Enforcement", showed a high rate of default among drunkenness offenders. They are, of course a stage army who appear again and again. We now have additional information which I must thank the Home Office Ministers and officials for arranging to provide. It will appear in HANSARD in reply to a Question I put down. The information shows in different sentence bands the proportion of their sentences served by persons committed to prison


in default of payment of fines. The object was to determine how readily fines are paid when the ultimate weapon of enforcement—imprisonment—is used.
Surely, prima facie, if people do not pay on imprisonment or shortly afterwards, or if they do not have enough money on them, in many cases it will be because they do not have the money. The largest category shown by these figures are those sentenced for up to one month. This category must include many drunkenness offenders. It is a category which included about 6,500 discharges in 1972. However, in 1971 and 1972 the figures are about the same—about 60 per cent. of the persons served over 80 per cent. of the sentence and about 40 per cent. served over 95 per cent. of the sentence.
The other category into which I have divided the figures are the remainder—those sentenced to over one month in default of payment of fine. There were about 4,000 discharges in 1972—about 50 per cent. of those served more than 50 per cent. of the sentence. Those figures carry a strong implication that these people did not have money to pay or, at least, that a great many of them did not. We are not here dealing only with drunkenness offenders. But let me first deal with drunkenness offenders. I know that the responsibility for provision of accommodation has been transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security, but the Home Office also has a responsibility and it cannot entirely wash its hands of the matter.
First, the Home Office is concerned to reduce the prison population. Secondly, Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 said that the offence of drunk and disorderly should cease to be imprison-able when the Secretary of State was satisfied that there was sufficient suitable accommodation within the community. That puts on the Home Secretary a responsibility to press the DHSS for stronger action than hitherto. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say what has been happening, what pressure the Home Office has exerted and when he expects to be able to activate Section 91.
However, there are not just drunkenness offenders. There are other fine defaulters. The Minister has frequently

pointed to the safeguards against the imprisonment of fine defaulters in the form of a need for investigation by the courts before such persons are sent to prison. But the Wootton Committee, which included many magistrates, said unanimously at paragraph 26 of its report:
We are not satisfied that magistrates' courts are adequately equipped to carry out the thorough investigation of means which the law requires before a fine defaulter is committed to prison. Too often the evidence available does not amount to much more than repeated failures to comply with demands for payment.
In other words, in the Committee's view, the safeguards were not adequate.
I know also, because the hon. and learned Gentleman told me in a letter, that the Home Office considers that the confidence of the courts and the general public in the fine enforcement process is an essential element in the drive towards a much wider use of non-custodial penalties. I suppose that nobody was more interested in that drive than the Wootton Committee which reported on non-custodial and semi-custodial penalties. It also wanted a wider use of such penalties. It said at paragraph 26:
We think first that non-custodial penalties should be truly non-custodial, and second that offenders upon whom a fine has been imposed should not be committed to prison if they have failed to pay that fine solely for want of means to do so.
It is precisely that, to which the Wootton Committee objected, that is happening again and again.
The Minister knows the recommendation of the minority of the Wootton Committee that imprisonment for nonpayment of fines was an anachronism that should be abolished, and its proposal that instead it should be a criminal offence for any person persistently to refuse or neglect to pay a fine when he has the means to do so. The majority of the committee dissented from that recommendation, but clearly expressed their desire to limit imprisonment to wilful defaulters. They evidently considered that further experience was necessary before methods of achieving that end were selected.
We have further evidence and experience and information now. We have had a further three years. We have the Home Office Research Unit study. Perhaps the Government are now prepared


to accept the views of the Wootton minority. If they are not, they should tell us what they intend to do to ensure that people are not sent to prison in default of payment of a fine unless they are wilful defaulters.
I come finally to maintenance defaulters, another subject on which I have put Questions to the Minister. There were about 3,850 non-criminal prisoners discharged in 1972, of whom about 3,000 were committed for family maintenance. Can those figures be reduced? Imprisonment under the law is permissible only for wilful refusal or culpable neglect. The Payne Committee considered the question whether magistrates' courts can distinguish between inability to pay and wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Six members—half of the committee—considered that the magistrates' courts could not distinguish between inability and refusal to pay.
There is now considerable evidence that they were right. There is the evidence in the committee's report about the relative freedom with which magistrates' courts commit maintenance defaulters as compared with the more restricted use of commitment by other courts. There is also evidence in an article by Mr. Albert Watson in Probation for November 1972, which I hope the Minister has read. Mr. Watson's sample was admittedly small, but it brings out the type of men who go to prison as maintenance defaulters. They were ignorant of their rights. Of the 11 in the sample, three were unemployed, and only one commanded an income exceeding £18 a week. The lower the income the higher the percentage which was represented by the order payable. There was a high rate of recidivism.
Further, there is the new information with which the Home Office has provided me and which is now being published in HANSARD. I extend my thanks for the work which has been done, which is on a similar basis to the information which I asked for in respect of fine defaulters. It shows that the great majority of maintenance defaulters go to prison for between four and eight weeks. It shows that approximately 80 per cent. of them serve more than 80 per cent. of their sentence. Could we have a less satisfactory position than that? They serve their time almost in full. They do not

pay and we achieve nothing. That is not surprising because from the Watson survey, and the survey conducted by Mrs. Pauline Morris, we learn that many people are going to prison through their inability to pay.
Does that help the families of these people? Mrs. Morris, in "Prisoners and their Families"—this is evidence quoted by the Payne Committee—showed that imprisonment made little difference to the income of the families. Mr. Watson found that in none of these cases did imprisonment help to get payment.
Does imprisonment deter others from becoming maintenance defaulters? There is no evidence that it does. No one on the Payne Committee thought that imprisonment should be kept to deter others. That is confirmed by experience following the abolition of imprisonment for civil debt. It is now known that the imprisonment of civil debtors was not necessary as a deterrent to others.
It is true that we want to help families, but this is not the way to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have seen a book by O. R. McGregor and others entitled "Separate Spouses", in which it is said:
If a maintenance defaulter has the means to pay, the best method of ensuring that the court's order will not be flouted is to establish an effective machinery of extraction. If he lacks the means to pay, his failure cannot be contumacious.
The important point is that no one benefits from existing procedures. It is clearly time to reopen the matter and to see whether we cannot, without cost to deserted families, achieve a higher level of humanity in the handling of this subject by abandoning imprisonment for maintenance defaulters.
I have put many questions to the Minister. I am sure that he welcomes the fact that the Prison Report does not just appear but is occasionally debated in the House. I hope that he will be able to give satisfactory answers.

5.49 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I am glad that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) was not stuck in the lift. If that had happened we would have missed what has almost become a traditional part of the Consolidated Fund Bill debate—namely, the right hon. Gentleman raising


various issues involving the Prison Report between the hours of 1.0 a.m. and 8.0 a.m., to which, for the last three years, I have had the pleasure of replying. I am sure that he and I share the disappointment that it is only at such hours and in such circumstances that we appear able to debate the reports of the Prison Department.
I am glad that we can again have this debate. Having listened throughout to the right hon. Gentleman, the overriding impression which I received was that much of his speech was of a more congratulatory nature than may have been the position in recent years. I shall do my best to answer at least some of the questions which he has asked.
I welcome the various trends which are now apparent in the most recent Prison Report of 1972. They are trends which I believe will be even more apparent when we have an opportunity to study the figures for 1973. I welcome those trends as I believe they are in accordance with the policy which the Government have been trying to pursue.
When one is looking at the 1972 Prison Report, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, perhaps the most significant and most notable fact one sees is that we have seen in the report a general downward trend in the prison population overall. I am glad to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that downward trend, noticeable in the 1972 report, has not only continued but has accelerated over the last 12 months.
Whereas, during part of 1970 and part of 1971, the prison population exceeded 40,000—I remember well those days in the latter half of 1970—by 1972 the average daily population was down to 38,328, in itself a decrease of 3·5 per cent. on the 1971 figure. The average figure for 1973, which we now have, shows that it was down still further, from 38,328, markedly to 36,880. If I take the latest individual daily figure available—for 31st December 1973—and I accept that because of the sittings of the courts, it may not be completely consistent with the rest of the year—the figure was 35,010.
When one compares that figure of 35,010 with more than 40,000 in the middle and latter half of 1970, it means that we have been able to achieve a

12½ per cent. reduction in the prison population in three and a half years. That is something which, as he said, the right hon. Gentleman likes, and I also welcome it.
It is notable that that drop in the figure for 1972 over that for 1971 has occurred at a time when the rate of conviction for indictable offences has gone slightly upwards. While I have not the rate of convictions for 1973, and it is true that there are most welcome signs that the volume of crime in 1973 is down compared with 1972, nevertheless there is a more marked drop in receptions into prison and in the daily prison population.
As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, perhaps the most significant fact is that, in 1970, 216 out of 1,000 adult males found guilty of indictable offences were sent to prison and that this dropped to 197 out of 1,000 in 1972. I think, therefore, that there is a noticeable shift away from prison as a sentence. Certainly that would be consistent with the approach which we have continually advocated from the Home Office over the last three and a half years. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I welcome that overall trend which the 1972 Prison Report shows, and which, as I say, has been continued in 1973.
That continuing fall in the prison population, as the right hon. Gentleman said, has led to an encouraging fall in the degree of overcrowding. The only figure I would cite, and which is consistent with and confirms that which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is that there are today some 3,000 people living three in a cell, compared with some 8,000 people living three in a cell some three years ago.
Any reduction of this kind in the prison population means that in the Home Office one has been able to review the forecasts of the likely prison population in coming years. The reduction we have seen, against a predicted increase in the prison population, has undoubtedly enabled us to make a dramatic change in those forecasts. To take two most extreme situations. In 1970, shortly after this Government came to office, the forecast put to us on the rate of growth in the prison population was that we would have to estimate for a prison population in England and Wales of 56,000 by 1976


and of between 62,000 and 67,000 by the end of the decade. As a result of what happened during the last three years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the most recent Government White Paper on expenditure we have managed to revise the forecast from a figure of 56,000 by 1976 to a figure of 40,900, a drop of just about 15,000. The other forecast is that by the end of the decade the prison population is unlikely to exceed 42,000, as against a previous forecast of between 62,000 and 67,000.
A turn-round of that nature in the forecasts is bound to have repercussions on the prison building programme. It is indeed a most welcome reduction. It has enabled us to review the shape and the size of the prison building programme.
Although that reduction in the forecasts has enabled us to review the shape and size of the prison building programme I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have carried through, and are carrying through, a major prison building programme far in excess of that which was carried out by our predecessors, and a programme which is not only providing places at a substantially faster rate than that of the potential growth in the prison population but which will continue to do so despite the recently announced cuts in Government expenditure.
In the last year of the Labour Government, at a time when the prison population soared, I think I am right in saying that work was started on 80 new places within the whole of the prison world. During the last three years we have consistently been starting new places at the rate of over 2,000 a year to cope with the deplorable situation of overcrowding and neglect which we found on taking office. While we welcome the reduction in the prison population and the change in the forecast which this allowed us to make, the White Paper provides for the provision of 1,000 new prison places in the five years 1973–78 ; against an original forecast of 3,000 a year.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about the proportion of the cuts in the Home Office capital programme relating to the prison department, I understand that there will be a reduction of £5 million in what was the anticipated capital expenditure. I cannot say what effect that will have on any particular building

programme, but despite the cut we shall still be providing places at a faster rate than the potential growth in prison population and at a far faster rate than was under way when we took office.
I know that it is a matter of concern to the right hon. Gentleman that the proportion of those in prison who are unconvicted has slightly risen over the past two years. One must look at that proportional rise against the overall drop in the total number of people in prison. The number of unconvicted people in prison has remained pretty constant at about 5,000.
What is most encouraging is that the figure for receptions into prison of those who were not convicted has dropped, for untried prisoners, from 47,000 in 1971 to 44,000 in 1972 and for convicted prisoners awaiting sentence from 27,000 to 23,000. That is a marked drop for one year. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out before, in a Question, as well as tonight, the length of time spent in prison by those on remand seems to have gone up. This would seem to have been caused by the delay occasioned in trials of those in custody in 1972.
I said in answer to a recent Question that during 1973 the period spent awaiting trial from committal to trial has noticeably come down, as a result of the steps taken by the Lord Chancellor, from 8·3 weeks in 1972 to an average of under seven weeks in the last quarter of 1973. Surprisingly—and I am not yet in a position to answer the question I pose—although there has been a marked and welcome drop in the period of time between committal for trial and trial, the daily average population of unsentenced prisoners appears to have remained constant in 1973, as in 1972.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to the various steps the Government have taken in attempting to reduce the unconvicted prison population. We have plans for further bail hostels for the out-patient provision of medical reports, and the reduction of the period of remand of those remanded for report from a normal 21 days to 14 days.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the out-patient facilities that we have provided for medical reports have not been more widely used by the courts. The right hon. Gentleman asked what the Home Office intended to


do about it. All we can do is to provide the facilities, draw their availability to the attention of the courts and hope that they will consider them suitable for use. We cannot direct the courts to use the facilities. We can only encourage them to use them. The out-patient facilities for medical reports are available and I hope that they will be used by the courts. What is noticeable above all is that the overall percentage of people remanded on bail for trial is rising and the average percentage of those remanded in custody is coming down.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the working party's report on bail. The working party has reported and I hope that the report will be published in March of this year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked various questions about social inquiry reports. He said that he had received an answer from me today on this matter in which I said that I would write further to him. I have written, although I realise that the right hon. Gentleman may not yet have received my letter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the Government did not consider there was justification for implementing Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Briefly, the answer is that the result of the questionnaire we sent out was generally reassuring. The replies suggest that in a significant majority of cases during the period to which we referred reports were supplied. Where they were not it was most often because the courts considered that the gravity of the offence or the defendant's record made a report unnecessary. Having assessed as best I can the result of the questionnaires, I do not feel justified in urging my right hon. Friend to make rules under Section 57, because the system at present available to the courts is working reasonably well. I believe that the existing arrangements, with their flexibility, have real and desirable advantages as against any rigid imposition.
The right hon. Gentleman then turned to the question of the immigrant. It is true that the number of immigrants in prison has grown noticeably, one might say markedly, over the past two years. In 1971 there were 745 receptions. By 1972 that figure had risen to 1,161 and the daily average prison population of

110 in 1972 has risen far higher. I was told today that the figure for immigrants in prison was just over 200. The reasons lie in the greater number of people attempting to enter this country, in the numbers who are refused admission and are held pending checks being made about their suitability for admission, in those seeking to come in without proper documentation, those United Kingdom passport holders who are attempting to jump the queue, those remaining awaiting deportation, and those who have been arrested as illegal immigrants, already here.
In view of the pressures, one cannot be surprised at the increase in the immigrant prison population. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether one was justified to release a person pending a decision whether he was to be allowed to remain in the country or to enter it. I cannot, without notice, answer that point about the criteria which are applied. I will willingly write to the right hon. Gentleman if it is of assistance. The obvious answer is that by the very nature of the people concerned there must be a substantial risk of their going to ground if they are released on bail because they are subject to potential deportation or because entry is being prohibited. The basic criterion, as in any other similar application, is the question of the risk of the person disappearing.

Mr. Dell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not find it disturbing that he does not know the answer to the simple questions I have put on this subject and that he has to rely on these general statements, which may generally be true and which might involve injustice to individuals, which I know he would not wish to countenance?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not find it disturbing because a debate on the prison report covers a potentially vast range of subjects. I have done my best to be in a position to answer the likely questions to be raised. I have never been responsible for the immigration side of the Home Office and it does not come directly within my day-to-day jurisdiction. I agree that some of my answers have been of that type. Clearly the basic criterion is the substantial risk that people will disappear if allowed bail. If the criteria are more exact than that, I will do my best


to supply the right hon. Gentleman with detailed information.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were not concerned about the number of fine defaulters who were in prison. However, the number of people going to prison for the non-payment of fines has remained constant, as has the length of time for which they remain in prison. The right hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is in some way inconsistent that people fined by the courts, especially for non-imprison able offences, should eventually find themselves in prison. I take the logic of his argument. But what is the sanction available other than imprisonment for the non-payment of fines? I cannot accept the argument that prison should not be the final deterrent in these cases.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was very unsatisfactory that people should be sent to prison for the nonpayment of maintenance. It is unsatisfactory that people should be in prison rather than carry out their liabilities and maintain their families. However, a maintenance defaulter may be sent to prison only if the court is satisfied that his failure to pay is due to culpable neglect or wilful default. A knowledge of human nature leads to the inevitable belief that certain people will pay the maintenance ordered by a court only under the threat of imprisonment if they choose to evade payment.
I am aware that I have not answered all the right hon. Gentleman's points. I conclude by saying that, like him, I welcome the indications of a reduction in the overall prison population shown by the 1972 Report of the Prison Department. The trend will be seen in the 1973 report to have continued and to have accelerated. This is encouraging evidence that that for which the Home Office has been striving is being achieved. More and more we look upon prison as the final means of dealing with those who offend against the law. Wherever possible and wherever appropriate for the safety of the public and the punishment of the individual, we believe that we should deal with people outside prison rather than by custodial sentences.

Orders of the Day — MR. L. W. JURY

6.20 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: I appreciate very much the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury at this late hour of the night or so early in the morning, but I make no apology, although the hour is strange, for raising the case of my constituent, Mr. L. W. Jury.
Most of the previous debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill during the afternoon and night have dealt with major national issues, but the rights of the individual represent a sacred cornerstone of our Parliament that we, as individual MPs, are here to protect. It is in the strongest belief in that duty that I raise the case of Mr. Jury.
The facts of the case are well known to my hon. Friend. I appreciate the close personal interest and concern that he has shown over the whole problem that this case has raised, but I must restate the facts.
This case arises from the tax return of Mr. Jury which was submitted on his behalf by his solicitors, Messrs. Thorne & Thorne, of Minehead, to the Inland Revenue, and subsequently they received a query whether all relevant income had been included in the return.
The solicitors were aware that that kind of inquiry is not made by the Inland Revenue unless it has good grounds for believing that something has been omitted, that the Inland Revenue is not normally prepared to disclose what it thinks has been omitted, and, further, that on a previous occasion there had been some queries over Mr. Jury's tax return. Therefore, they consulted Mr. Jury and decided that there was no alternative but to make a thorough investigation of his financial affairs going back to 1956 to satisfy themselves that nothing had been omitted.
The solicitors had been forced to point out to Mr. Jury that if proper investigations were not made, if he merely confirmed that he was satisfied that nothing had been omitted, only to be proved wrong, he could be liable to criminal proceedings. Therefore, they instituted the fullest investigation and had spent approximately £100 on the matter when


they received advice and an apology from the Inland Revenue for having failed to notice that one item that it thought had been omitted had in fact been included and stating that there was no further matter or query that it wished to raise.
Mr. Jury and his advisers immediately raised with the Inland Revenue the question of the costs which had been incurred in this further investigation which had been instigated as a result of its inquiry. The Inland Revenue said that it was never its practice to pay the costs of any agent, that the employment of an agent by a taxpayer was his own responsibility, and that it could not be held responsible for any costs incurred even though they resulted from an error on its part.
My constituent and his advisers then approached me and I submitted the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration who made a thorough investigation of the whole matter. I should like to pay tribute to the clarity and detail of the Parliamentary Commission's report to me. One must respect the Parliamentary Commissioner's experience in view of the number of Inland Revenue cases with which he has dealt during his time in that office. He approaches this subject with considerable experience, but I was surprised at the total clarity and lack of any query in the conclusion that he reached. Therefore, I think that I should repeat to the House the final sentences of his report:
The inquiry should never have been made and was due to a mistake which the Department have acknowledged as particularly bad. In my view Mr. Jury thereby sustained a clear loss. The Department refuse to make this good, and I must report, therefore, that Mr. Jury has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration by the Inland Revenue and that this has not been remedied.
No Member of Parliament with a sense of responsibility for his constituents could possibly accept that final sentence of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report that one of his constituents had suffered an injustice at the hands of a Government Department and leave the matter there if he knew that the injustice had not been remedied by the Parliamentary Commissioner in spite of his efforts to get that done. I therefore decided to raise the matter with my hon. Friend.
The Inland Revenue declined to respond to the proposal of the Parliamentary

Commissioner that this was an extremely clear-cut example of a serious mistake, as a result of which a taxpayer had suffered extra costs, and that therefore the Inland Revenue should recompense my constituent. I took the matter up with the Chairman of the Inland Revenue and made one last appeal to him to respect the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Unfortunately, the Chairman stood on the previous ground, namely, that it would set a dangerous precedent if the Inland Revenue started to pay agents' fees.
I therefore took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and after what I know, from my personal experience of him, will have been the fullest consideration and sympathy for this case, he has not found it possible to depart from the view taken by the Chairman of the Inland Revenue and I should, therefore, like to examine briefly the grounds for this refusal.
The argument is that it would set a precedent, that it would be impossible in future to draw a line in deciding which agents' expenses might be paid on occasion by the Inland Revenue when it had to make further inquiries which an agent or taxpayer could claim resulted from an error or lack of intelligence on the part of the Inland Revenue.
The Parliamentary Commissioner said that this was a most unusual case, that the error was particularly clear-cut and that the costs incurred were particularly easily identified.
Three essential points arise from this case. The first, quite apart from Mr. Jury and the costs that he has incurred, concerns the very principle of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I considered that there were good grounds for submitting this case to the Parliamentary Commissioner, because it was clear that my constituent had suffered an injustice as a result of an error by the Inland Revenue. When I received the Parliamentary Commissioner's report, it was clear and unequivocal. What particularly shocked me—and I know that it shocked many others, too—was the total refusal of the Inland Revenue to accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings.
The abruptness of the ending of the Parliamentary Commissioner's report underlines that, because he says:
… I must report, therefore, that Mr. Jury has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration by the Inland Revenue and that this has not been remedied.
It is signed:
Alan Marre, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
This underlines most clearly the lack of teeth and the lack of powers of action that the Parliamentary Commissioner has.
I recognise that in many circumstances that may well be the right situation. I am aware of the speech of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) in a debate on the Select Committee Report on the Parliamentary Commissioner in which he strongly agreed that the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner should not be mandatory on Government Departments and that they should not in all cases override the decision of a Government Minister. If we believe in our parliamentary system, it must be correct that Ministers must have the final decision.
Having said that, however, one must also recognise that the Ombudsman and his office were set up to meet genuine public concern at the power of bureaucracy and the lack of rights of the individual. In this situation there is widespread public belief that the Ombudsman has powers perhaps in some ways much greater than he possesses and that Government Departments rarely, if ever, will go against his findings.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will join me in supporting the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the value which he has in our complicated and at times bureaucratic society—a safety valve, a body to whom individual citizens through their Members of Parliament can appeal when they think they have had a raw deal from an action by a Government Department, when they do not believe that they have had proper treatment. It is vital that this office, the respect for it and public faith in it are maintained. Obviously a case like that of Mr. Jury, in which the Inland Revenue has declined to respect the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner, does enormous damage to public faith in his office.
The second point that I would raise is the point which is claimed both by my hon. Friend and by the Chairman of the Inland Revenue—the objection to take action, the danger that it would set a precedent and that in future it would be impossible to draw the line. I have briefly referred to the fact that both the Chairman of the Inland Revenue and the Parliamentary Commissioner agreed that it was an unusually clear-cut error and one which was readily identifiable. Clearly the Parliamentary Commissioner felt that this was a case that could be easily distinguished. He made the point, moreover, that
the costs in Mr. Jury's case can, in my view, be distinguished from other kinds of costs incurred in the normal exchanges between tax offices and agents, even where Inland Revenue mistakes may be in question. The departmental mistake in this case—a particularly bad one—led the Inspector unnecessarily to ask further questions".
What concerns me about the objection of the Inland Revenue in this matter is that it has set above anything else the danger of setting a precedent. I believe that the risk of a precedent is the worst defence in many cases. It admits the justice of the case but says, "We cannot take action because it might lead to other cases of a similar kind." What has happened in this case is that the fear of what might happen in the future has carried more weight with the Inland Revenue than has individual justice to my constituent, since the Inland Revenue admits the error and apologises for it but finds it impossible to offer any recompense to my constituent.
There is a third and separate point which arises out of this case and which has not been adequately made before. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is rather fatuous that he and I should be discussing this case, raising these great points of principle with the Parliamentary Commissioner, when all that is involved is a suspected omission of £37 from a tax return, and that the whole issue should have arisen because of the practice of the Inland Revenue not to disclose what items it suspects to be missing from a tax return.
In his report the Parliamentary Commissioner confirmed:
From my own investigation of other cases, I can confirm that, when they make enquiry of a taxpayer's agents about possible


undisclosed income, the Department are not generally willing to give details of the nature of the information on which they are acting.
That is a practice that must be reviewed.
I can well understand that with people of substantial means, when it is suspected that a number of items are not being correctly disclosed, it is important that the Inland Revenue should not reveal its hand completely and it may prefer to couch its inquiry in a totally general way so that it does not reveal to the taxpayer, who may have many different sources of income, which items it has in mind. But this is simply not that sort of case.
Mr. Jury is an elderly gentleman who would not mind my describing him as of modest means. He has saved a small sum of money on which he now draws modest sums of interest. But this matter will involve him in an extra cost of £100 and it arose because the Inland Revenue failed to identify a return, an item of £37·94, in my constituent's return.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree that that could have been easily avoided. Is it not possible for the Inland Revenue to use its discretion? A simple telephone call from the Revenue to Messrs. Thorne and Thorne, who are acting for Mr. Jury, asking whether the £37 had been included in the tax return would have shown that it was and that would have saved all this worry and it would have saved Mr. Jury £100 and saved the Parliamentary Commissioner an investigation and saved the time of the Chairman of the Inland Revenue and my own. This is a change that could readily be made.
I know that my hon. Friend has already given serious consideration to this matter and I know that he recognises the arguments for Mr. Jury and has considerable sympathy with him. Nevertheless, this is a responsibility of the Inland Revenue. I recognise the risks, as anyone must, of starting the practice of paying the fees of agents when mistakes are alleged to have been made and when the agents are involved in greater expense. Of course there are difficulties and there may be many instances where there could be problems and even serious abuses. Nevertheless, as the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner are so clear cut, I feel that this is a case which must be reconsidered.
As my hon. Friend and I have already had considerable correspondence on this matter and have so far failed to make very much progress, will he agree to arrange a meeting with the Chairman of the Inland Revenue which he and I could attend so that this matter can be reconsidered? Will my hon. Friend also consider particularly the proposal that the Inland Revenue practice on disclosing the details of its queries on relatively small amounts should be reviewed?

6.40 a.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): In raising the case of Mr. Jury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) is exercising one of the most important rights that is open to Members of the House. I know that my hon. Friend feels that his constituent has not been properly treated by the Inland Revenue on this occasion. It is clear that Mr. Jury and my hon. Friend feel a sense of injustice. Although I have written to my hon. Friend in some detail setting out reasons why the Government were not able to uphold the Parliamentary Commissioner in this case, I nevertheless fully accept that it is a proper and sensible matter for debate on this occasion.
As my hon. Friend said, the rights and liberties of the subject are the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy, and the raising of the problems of individual constituents is at the heart of that democracy. Even if my hon. Friend brings this matter before the House at 6.30 a.m., it is right and proper that a Minister should be present to answer the points which he makes.
In my original letter to my hon. Friend I agreed with him that it would be wholly wrong if the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings in particular cases were generally to be disregarded by Government Departments. Clearly such an attitude on the part of the executive would be unacceptable. It is essential in the interests of public confidence in not only the Parliamentary Commissioner but also Government Departments that the Commissioner's recommendations should be accepted and seen to be accepted in the vast majority of cases. At the same time, it has not been suggested very frequently—as I understand it, my hon. Friend does not suggest that it should be so on this


occasion—that the Parliamentary Commissioner's recommendations should be mandatory on Ministers. Indeed, as I shall want to show shortly, it would be a very odd constitutional principle if an Officer of Parliament, which is what the Parliamentary Commissioner is, were able to overrule the findings of Ministers who are elected to the House of Commons by the people of this country.
It is the purpose of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner to monitor the extent to which Ministers of the Crown accept or reject recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner ; although I think that it would be true to say that the Select Committee does not suggest that it, as a Select Committee, should generally retry individual cases. The Select Committee has already been successful in persuading Treasury Ministers to make changes in the procedures of the Inland Revenue. As I shall mention shortly, we have certain other matters of Inland Revenue procedures under review now. Indeed, in the celebrated Sachsenhausen case, the House persuaded Mr. George Brown, as he then was, to change his mind. Nevertheless, the principles which were enunciated by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), in his speech on 24th October last year, set out the position very well indeed. I shall not quote them tonight, but they can be found in HANSARD for 24th October last year.
I have noted—it is a matter of concern to me—that the Inland Revenue has been under criticism in some parts of the House on Parliamentary Commissioner matters. I must say, first, that this department of Government is involved with the affairs of 25 million taxpayers. Much of the work is exceptionally complex and detailed. The Parliamentary Commissioner has so far examined only about 360 cases of alleged maladministration by the Inland Revenue. When one compares that figure with the 25 million taxpayers with whom the Inland Revenue is dealing, one sees that it is a fairly good record.
As I told my hon. Friend in only nine of these 360 cases have Ministers felt unable to rectify the situation revealed

and of the nine cases six are related to the payment of interest by the Inland Revenue on overpayments of tax on which the Government have undertaken to give further consideration. I can assure the House, although these are different cases from that which concerns Mr. Jury, that we are seriously looking at this matter. There are a further nine cases where part of the recommendation was accepted and part refused.
I do not need to give again the full details of Mr. Jury's complaint. The inspector, thinking that the taxpayer might have received some untaxed interest and not notified it in his tax return, wrote to the taxpayer's agents, a firm of solicitors, asking them to verify his tax return. When the inspector came to review the case four months later he noticed that the interest had been included—stapled, as my hon. Friend said, to the back of the return itself.
It seems a pity, although I am in no way critical on this, that the solicitors did not go back to Mr. Jury and ask him to confirm that he had returned all his income and then go back to the inspector and tell him that. Had that happened the inspector might have re-examined the whole situation and found his error immediately. For reasons outlined by my hon. Friend, the inspector did not discover his error until about four months later. Immediately he did so, and having satisfied himself that there were no omissions of income, he wrote to the solicitors saying that he wished to pursue the matter no further.
The solicitors then claimed that they had incurred expenses of £100 in investigating Mr. Jury's returns and claimed reimbursement. The Revenue refused and my hon. Friend then quite rightly passed the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner. Following upon the rejection of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission by the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, I naturally investigated the matter with very great care. I can assure my hon. Friend that it would be my wish to uphold the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings wherever possible. It is clearly much easier for Ministers to accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's findings than to take the opposite view.
On the other hand, there is always the difficult question of judgment for Ministers where the Parliamentary Commissioner's recommendations conflict with other essential factors and in this case, after full discussion with senior Inland Revenue officials, I had to come to the view that the reasons given by the Inland Revenue to the Parliamentary Commissioner—and they are contained in paragraphs 7 to 9 of his report—must be upheld.
The Department argued that once it accepted that there were cases in which it paid agents' fees, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for it to resist claims by other taxpayers for their agents' fees. In paragraph 8 of the Parliamentary Commissioner said:
I recognise that taxpayers may from time to time incur additional agents' expenses following tax office mistakes, and I would not suggest, as a general proposition, that in all such cases an obligation rested upon the Inland Revenue to meet those expenses. But the costs in Mr. Jury's case can, in my view, be distinguished from other kinds of costs incurred in the normal exchanges between tax offices and agents, even where Inland Revenue mistakes may be in question.
The point at issue is whether Mr. Jury's case can be distinguished from other cases. It has always been the principle that whether or not a taxpayer employs an agent is for him to decide. It would be difficult to move from that position and at the same time rectify Mr. Jury's grievance as my hon. Friend would wish to see it rectified.
I realise that this is essentially a line-drawing argument, which is never very acceptable to the House, as my hon. Friend says. But the fact of the matter remains that once the Inland Revenue started paying the expenses of agents where it had made a mistake it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to decide where the line should be drawn between one claim for expenses and another.
The Inland Revenue, I think rightly, is extremely reluctant to conduct its affairs by ad hoc discretionary decisions. Rather, it seeks to proceed in dealing with taxpayers on the basis of clearly defined rules which can be scrutinised by Ministers and, if need be, by Parliament. Once it was agreed that the Revenue was liable for agents' fees, there would be likely to be an additional number of

claims from taxpayers for agents' expenses, and inspectors would be placed in the position of having to make a discretionary decision in a wide number of cases. They would be placed in the unenviable position of occasionally being judge and jury in their own case.
Much as I should like to take the Parliamentary Commissioner's view that Mr. Jury's case can in some way be distinguished from other claims for expenses, I had to decide that that was not possible. It is essentially a matter of judgment.

Mr. King: Of course, in any organisation it is much easier to have a complete set of rules by which everything is organised and run. As there are 25 million taxpayers, one recognises the desirability of that. But the very reason for the existence of the Parliamentary Commissioner is that all Government Departments would like to have rigid sets of rules for everything, with no discretion—that makes life much easier—and under such rules injustices can occur. The Parliamentary Commissioner exists to try to introduce a way in which serious injustices caused by those inflexible rules can be put right. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to support the smooth running of the Inland Revenue, under the strain that it has, but one cannot totally support the desire for a rigid set of rules.

Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend makes a useful point. I said earlier that only nine of the 360 cases of alleged maladministration by the Inland Revenue investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner were proven, and that we have already made changes in Inland Revenue rules and procedures to meet criticisms from the Parliamentary Commissioner. The only point of difference between my hon. Friend and myself is the degree to which discretion should be placed in the hands of the Department in dealing with cases such as that of Mr. Jury.
I was only making the general proposition, which I think must be correct, that with such a huge Department, dealing with 25 million taxpayers, it would be extremely difficult—and there might be even greater injustice in a far greater number of cases—if it were not the normal procedure for the inspectors to proceed by a set of rules.
I can assure my hon. Friend that I came entirely fresh to the matter, with as much willingness as possible to find a solution to the problem. But I was convinced that if we accepted the findings of the report the Inland Revenue would be placed in a difficult position in relation to claims by other taxpayers. It was on that basis that I supported the line which it has taken.
I say immediately that there is clearly room for disagreement and that this is an important matter. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall ask a member of the Board of the Inland Revenue to be present at a meeting where the three of us can review the case again. I offer that suggestion to my hon. Friend. If he wishes to get in touch with me we can fix a time.
My hon. Friend referred to Inland Revenue procedures. When the Inland Revenue learns of information which indicates that a taxpayer has not disclosed all his income in his return, there is a system under which it sends a general inquiry to the taxpayer or to his agent. Of course, information comes to inspectors from a wide variety of sources. It is in the interests of the general body of taxpayers that every matter should be investigated with care. It is true to say that there should be an investigation whether there is involved £37 or £370. I am not taking Mr. Jury's case as an example because it is clear that he never did anything which could be wrong. The position is that a mistake was made by the inspector. The fact that only £37 has not been disclosed does not mean that there is not another source of income amounting to very much more which has not been disclosed. The procedures which have been set out are intended to try to find out whether other sources of income might not have been disclosed.
Parliament has expressly provided that local authorities, banks and other bodies should provide to the Inland Revenue the details of interest paid. When the inspectors receive that information they seek to match it with information from individual tax returns. The procedure under which inspectors do not disclose to taxpayers the source of their information but ask them in general terms to check their return is of long standing. It can cause disquiet, and as a person who answers inquiries, including inquiries

from hon. Members, I know that that is so. On the other hand, it has been found in many cases that the erring taxpayer then discloses another source of income.
The Inland Revenue is, of course, responsible for the collection of taxes. It feels that if it were not able to follow the procedure which I have described it would be hindered considerably in countering evasion. I must uphold the procedures which are now adopted.
We are reviewing certain matters which have been brought to the attention of Ministers by the Select Committee. We shall in due course be saying more about the cases which we are reviewing. They are matters of a rather different nature from the complaint of Mr. Jury. Although I do not see any way in which we can meet my hon. Friend, I shall be prepared to see him with a member of the Board of the Inland Revenue and to discuss the affair again.

Orders of the Day — ELECTORAL REGISTER

6.58 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: When I address school audiences, as I have done this week, I always say that one of the glories of our parliamentary system is that it is possible for a back-bench Member to raise subjects ranging from the case of an individual, as has been done by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), to matters of the widest constitutional implications. Parliamentary procedure makes it possible for back-bench Members to do so. Today is a good example in that at two minutes to seven o'clock it is possible for a back-bench Member to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter of grave constitutional importance. It is a matter which is of considerable topical interest.
I wish to look at the introduction of the new electoral register which is to take place just one month from this parliamentary day, on 16th February. I ask why, if a General Election is to be held in February, it should not be held on this new electoral register, rather than in the expiring days of a dying parliamentary register. If there is to be a General Election next month—and I would be happy for it to take place—for it to be held on the expiring register


rather than the new electoral register would be nothing less than an outrage against parliamentary democracy.
The new register will come into force on 16th February, having been published the previous day. When published it will no doubt be found to be in many respects inaccurate. There always are complaints when a new one is published and the statement on 14th January by the Home Office, to which I shall refer later, says that the register is likely to contain the names of about 96 per cent. of those entitled to vote. Even so there will be inadequacy, and that must be recognised. I do not think that many will complain of so small an error in so large a document.
Even so, that register will be very new. It will be only four months old and will deal with people as they lived in their residences on 10th October last year. It will have been revised and brought right up to and including December last year, so it will be a new and extremely valid document.
It would be an ideal register for an election in which the Government desires the maximum possible appeal to secure a valid and emphatic mandate for the controversial policies dividing this country. Yet it is likely that today the Government will announce the election—if not today, perhaps tomorrow—and it would take place in the dying days of the old register.
We should remind ourselves that the old register is not a year old but 16 months old because it was compiled in October 1972. That would be more than 16 months before the date on which the election was likely to be fought.
If it were on 7th February it would be almost exactly 16 months to the day later. Since that date in 1972 many have died and many have moved. In the Home Office statement, the Government social survey admitted that about 10 per cent. of the electorate had moved between the canvass and the expiry of the register. Since the Home Office assumes that there are 40 million names on the new register, it means that about 4 million people will have moved house.
Regardless of the glib phrases which will no doubt be regurgitated by the Under-Secretary, many will be deprived of the vote if the election is held in the

last days of the old register. The Home Office this week has behaved rather more like a branch of the Conservative Central Office than a Government Department. It issued a statement implying that all but a handful of those 4 million would get the postal vote. It certainly implied that all but a handful could get the postal vote. At best that argument is disingenuous. At worst, that argument is untruthful.
It is certainly true that it is open to many of those who have moved to claim the postal vote, but how many will do so? How many will be able to complete the complicated procedure within the very few days? If the General Election were to be held on 7th February, applications for postal votes would have to be in by Thursday of next week, 24th January, and if the election were to be on 14th February the applications would have to be in by 31st January. Either way, the period during which postal votes could be applied for and ratified would be a very few days indeed.
It may be that the Government will say that large numbers of people apply for the postal vote and receive it. The Minister of State may incline himself to quote the number of people who cast postal votes at the last General Election—731,116. That is a very small number compared with the 4 million who are being deprived of their vote because they have moved house, but in any case those who move house are only a small proportion of those who are eligible for the postal vote and only a small proportion of those who receive the postal vote.
Most of the people who receive and exercise the postal vote are what might be called regulars—the sick ; people living in old people's homes, for whom the postal vote is applied for by those in charge of the old people's homes ; blind people ; people working regularly away from home. One would find, if one investigated the hundreds of thousands of those who obtain postal votes, that many are on the postal vote register permanently, as, indeed, for example, I was for a considerable time, first as a journalist and then in another occupation.
What is clear is that those who receive the postal vote do not include many of those who move, because for them it is a once-for-all exercise. People do not


move every year. People do not often move more than once within the lifetime of a full-length Parliament. Therefore, there is no impetus upon them to apply a long time before an election for the postal vote. It is a hurried operation, even if they get round to doing it.
Removals, as the Home Office admitted in its statement, are a key element in the number of people who will be deprived of their vote if the election is held at the very end of the old register, and there is no doubt that there are many removals. I can take my own constituency as an example. In preparation for this debate I glanced through my constituency files—not my full constituency files by any manner of means—and I found many dozens of people who had moved home between October 1972 and today. If one glances through the list one finds that many have moved considerable distances—some small distances, but some quite large ones—for example, to Stockport, or Partington or Sale. Those people, it is true, will qualify for the postal vote—they will qualify if they apply, if they are alerted by an announcement by the Government, if they are winkled out by the political parties. But they will not be canvassed in the constituencies in which they will vote. For example, if a constituent of mine who has moved to Sale is canvassed, it will be in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency. The Chancellor will lose his vote if the election is held on the old register. So canvassers of the political parties will not easily find these electors.
But many of these electors will not qualify for a postal vote even under the enlarged qualification brought in under legislation passed in the last Parliament. Because of this, although someone who has moved to another local authority area or to another parliamentary constituency can obtain a postal vote, someone who has moved to another part of the same constituency cannot. Yet if someone has moved within a constituency or local authority area, it can still mean a long distance for him to travel, even in a small urban division.
There is an example in my constituency of a man who has moved from Autumn Street at one end of my constituency to a block of flats in Piatt Court, right at the other end of the constituency, which

is a considerable distance. We shall get that man to the poll because we know about him, but how many more shall we or any other party not know about who are in the same position? The parties, however active, are unlikely to winkle out all such people.
As for the people going to vote, if the election is held in February, it is likely that the weather will be poor. If the election date is a day such as yesterday, with an incredibly cold, wet and blustery night, how many voters who have to go a considerable distance will venture out of their homes on their own without transport?
If the Government hold an election, as it appears they may, in the dying days of the register, they will be doing so deliberately to deprive millions of people of their vote, in the hope of obtaining political advantage. This is an extraordinary Government. They came to power on a personal promise by the Prime Minister of honest and open government, yet they will very likely seek to retain power by means of a furtive election smuggled through in a way calculated to ensure the minimum possible poll.
I advise the Prime Minister, through the Minister of State, that, even so, the Government will lose the election. When the Prime Minister appears on television to concede, let him not complain, if the poll has been low, that he has been defeated in an apathetic election. He personally, by using his personal constitutional prerogative to decide the election date, will have produced that low poll. He will have done so by spurning the electors as he spurns Parliament. Yet he could have contributed to our democracy, and can still do so, by timing the election to take place on 28th February—an election which could be held on a brand new register.
It may be said that that is too soon, that the register will have been in force for only two weeks. I dispute that entirely. It certainly was not so in the Lincoln by-election last year which was held on 1st March—the equivalent Thursday to 28th February this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) explained the situation in a debate on the issue of the Berwick-upon-Tweed writ. He said:
I was assured that past records showed that if I were to move the writ before the


new register came into being, I would disfranchise a vast proportion of those who might otherwise have the right to vote. In the event, I moved the writ at the earliest opportunity on the new register so that within a matter of days from the time when the new register came into being, the writ was issued. As a consequence I was assured by the experts that around 14 per cent. of those who voted at the Lincoln by-election were able to do so because I moved the writ when I did.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July 1973 ; Vol. 860, c. 738.]
If that large number of people who would have been disfranchised in one constituency were enfranchised, why cannot that be done in 635 constituencies? The problems are not insuperable. The problems in one constituency are the same as the problems in 635 constituencies polling simultaneously.
If the Government proceed to hold the election in the last days of the register they will flout the clear guidance from Mr. Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law. A letter signed by you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of that conference, dated 26th November 1973 and published last month, reads as follows:
It is inexpedient for by-elections to be held in August, or at the time of local elections in April/May, or in the period from mid-December to mid-February before (under present arrangements) a new register is issued.
If your Conference on Electoral Law, Mr. Speaker, sent a letter to the Prime Minister advising that it is inexpedient for by-elections to be held in the dying days of an old register, how much more inexpedient is it for a General Election to be held in the dying days of an old register? If the Government persist in this course it will be noted that they are defying the clear guidance of your Conference on Electoral Law. I hope that it will be noted that they will also be deliberately and for partisan ends—which will be frustrated—flouting the rights of electors. But I warn the Government that if they do this the voters will have their revenge.

7.18 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said that one of the interesting things about Consolidated Fund debates and one of the great strengths of our parliamentary system is that the House moves

from debating a matter which concerns an individual constituent to debating a matter of prime constitutional importance. Having listened to him, I think what he was saying was that one can move from debating the interests of an individual constituent to making a rather poor party political speech.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the matter he raises is of major constitutional importance. With great respect to him, that is absolute humbug, and he knows it. Let us see what is this issue which the hon. Gentleman raises as one of constitutional importance.
He says that he is concerned that it is possible for an election to be called at the end of the life of a register rather than at the beginning of a new register. He suggests that if an election should come on either 7th February or 14th February some constitutional outrage would be committed which would be a disgrace. May I point out the position with regard to the electoral register?
The register is based on a canvass done on 10th October of the previous year. It is accepted that the canvass when carried out will not be 100 per cent. effective. I think the hon. Gentleman quoted from a Home Office figure which estimates that it is, to a degree, about 96 per cent. effective at that time. That register can then be reviewed for inaccuracies in December. It comes into force on 16th February and remains in force during that year.
It is true that during the course of the year there are a number of people who have moved from one constituency to another. As he said, the provisions for voting allow those who move to qualify for a postal vote. Therefore, although he did not use the phrase, to talk, as certain people outside have done, of those who have moved as being disfranchised in any forthcoming election—which was the phrase used by the General Secretary of the Labour Party—is a complete nonsense. They are not disfranchised at all.
The only people who become disfranchised during the course of the year—at the end of the year—as against being on the new register, are those who have moved into the country between 10th October 1972 and October 1973, to take the present time, or those who were abroad at the time when the register was


made in October 1972, have returned to this country in the meantime and are here in October 1973. I refer to such people as businessmen or those working for international organisations. The best estimate I can give is that 24,000 Commonwealth immigrants entered the country between October 1972 and October 1973 and are not therefore on the 1973 register. At the most a total of 40,000 people who have been abroad for over a year have returned to this country during that period and therefore are not on the 1973 register.
If we are talking about those who are actually disfranchised—now living in this country but unable to take part in an election which might take place, on the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis, before 16th February and who would be able to vote after that date—we are talking of a figure of 64,000 out of a total electorate of 40 million. That is well under 1 per cent. of the total electorate, and that is the accurate figure of those who would not be entitled to have a vote although living in this country and being here in October of last year but who would be entitled to have a vote after 16th February.
The remainder of the figure to which the lion. Gentleman referred represents those who have moved their homes during the course of the year. The hon. Gentleman will accept that they are entitled to postal votes——

Mr. Kaufman: Not necessarily.

Mr. Carlisle: —unless they have moved to addresses in the same constituencies. They may not know of their right to postal votes. But I suggest that were there to be an election in the immediate future we should find that there had probably been greater publicity given to the election coming at a time when people who had moved since October 1972 were entitled to postal votes than had ever been given during the run-up to any other General Election.
Again, the General Secretary of the Labour Party has said that if we had an election on the present register we should be disfranchising young voters. That, too, is based on a misunderstanding. The electoral form which has to be completed allows for the registration of all those who become——

Mr. Kaufman: I know all that.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman may know it, but, according to the General Secretary of his party, all those who had become voters since 1970 would be disfranchised if there were an election before 15th February. It has been suggested that if we had an election on the present register, those under 18 or those who had become 18 since the register was formed would not be entitled to vote. That is not so. The electoral forms which are completed in October may include the names and dates of birth of all those who will become 18 during the currency of the register. Therefore all those who have become 18 during the past year and who are on the electoral roll are entitled to vote on the date on which they reach their eighteenth birthday. That is different from the system before, where a person did not go on the roll until after his twenty-first birthday.

Mr. Kaufman: May I first point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the General Secretary of the Labour Party has withdrawn the statement of which he complains?
In any event, I began my speech by saying that one of the glories of parliamentary democracy was that a Member could raise a subject like this and get a reply from the Government. The Minister has been churning out his departmental brief. So far he has not answered one of my points.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that I have even looked at my departmental brief. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching, he would have noticed. But I am glad that the General Secretary of the Labour Party has withdrawn his statement.
I understand that the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech was to suggest that an election held at the latter end of the period of currency of an electoral list meant that many people would lose their votes. However, the number who would be disfranchised is 64,000. But when the hon. Gentleman talks in terms of the figures that he mentioned, it is important to remember that those people are entitled to postal votes. They should know that they have that entitlement.
It is the most arrant cant and cheek for the hon. Gentleman, of all people, to


suggest that in some way it would be a constitutional outrage to hold an election within the next fortnight. Although he was not a Member of this House, I presume that the hon. Gentleman had something to do with the conduct of his party before he became a Member.
It was the Labour Party, when in Government, which, through the then Home Secretary, prior to the last election deliberately chose not to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Comsion Report because it believed that to do so would work to its electoral disadvantage.
I will remind the hon. Gentleman of what happened on that occasion. The Home Secretary brought in a Bill, the purpose of which was to implement that part of the report relating to London, which it was suggested was in the interests of the then Government, but not to implement it for the rest of the country.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government were unable to proceed with that Bill because they were challenged in the courts on the validity of what they were doing. As a result, we had the situation of the then Government going through what can only be described as the parliamentary farce of laying the orders to implement the Boundary Commission Report and then advising the House to vote against them. Therefore, the last election was fought on constituencies and boundaries that had last been reviewed in 1954. If ever there were any form of constitutional outrage, it was the conduct of the Labour Government at that stage.
The hon. Gentleman, representing a Manchester seat, must know that in that area alone it meant that there were seats at the last election with a much smaller electorate than in other parts of the country. The effect of those boundary changes meant that one seat in Manchester held by the Labour Party completely disappeared.
It is quite absurd for the hon. Gentleman or the Labour Party as a whole to try to build up the suggestion that, should the Prime Minister at any stage choose a date prior to the coming into force of the new register, he is somehow committing a constitutional outrage.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would welcome an early election and asked why it could not be held immediately after 16th February. The Prime Minister has complete freedom to choose the date on which to hold an election. Indeed, even the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in calling for an early election, felt that the earliest date after the coming into effect of the new register would be 7th April.

Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend said 4th April.

Mr. Carlisle: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman suggested 7th April.

Mr. Kaufman: He said 4th April.

Mr. Carlisle: All right, 4th April, if the hon. Gentleman says so. However, he must realise that to have a General Election immediately after the publication of the electoral list is always disliked. It causes inconvenience to all political parties because it means canvassing on a register totally different from that on which the vote will take place. Therefore, all those people at the moment on the register brought in during October 1972 who have moved since then, are entitled to a postal vote should there be an election prior to the coming into force of the new register.

Mr. Kaufman: That is not so.

Mr. Carlisle: They are entitled, if they have moved outside their constituencies, to a postal vote, and they should know about that.
Coming from the hon. Gentleman of all people, it is absolute humbug and cant to talk about this as a matter of grave constitutional importance. The hon. Gentleman referred to the holding of an election on the basis of the present register as an outrage to parliamentary democracy, yet he was a member of the Labour Party which disfranchised, if that is the right word, far more people by holding an election in the summer, when many more people were away on holiday than will be unable to vote on this occasion. It is probable that 500,000 people lost their votes for that reason. At the last election the Labour Party attempted by parliamentary means to rig the register in their favour but, quite rightly, it failed in its endeavours.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC EXPENDITURE (LONDON)

7.36 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: May I, at the outset, congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on his elevation, very temporary though it is, to the Front Bench. His appointment gives me a certain amount of pleasure, because the hon. Gentleman happens to be a very old friend of mine. We went to the same university and college, we debated against each other at that time and he is also a member of the same profession as myself, but now he seems to have gone off the rails altogether.
The Chancellor's mini-budget—the budget that never was in relation to the needs of the nation—totally misjudged the mood of the nation at the time. It failed to demand any real sacrifices from the wealthy to whom so much had been given gratuitously under the stewardship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and so foolishly. The budget made terrible demands, and it will continue to do so in future, on local government, particularly in the stress areas such as Hackney, of which my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) form part.
The Chancellor had the audacity during his speech on 19th December to say that local authorities would have no need to impose additional rate burdens. That remark depicted crass incompetence and lack of understanding or, worse, a terrifying hypocrisy. On that occasion the Chancellor said:
There is one point about rates that I want to make absolutely clear and I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will make it clear, as will my hon. Friends. In his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said,
'. to cut rate support grant… can only mean an additional rate burden on millions of householders.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 1185.]
I gather that the Opposition say 'Hear hear, and that was echoed last night in the right hon. Gentleman's television broadcast when he spoke of the result being another whopping rise in rates … I must tell the House that there is not one shred of truth in those assertons, and I will explain why.
The rate support grant will be reduced only in line with the savings in expenditure and if, like the rest of the public sector, the local authorities reduce their current expenditure in

accordance with the Government's request, that will not lead to one extra penny on the rates. That should be perfectly clear. If, on the other hand, any local authority deliberately sets outs to flaunt the national interest
——the right hon. Gentleman's grammar is as defective as his economics——
if it deliberately sets out to pursue a policy counter to the request that we have made and the rates go up in consequence, the necessary steps will no doubt be taken to remind electors where responsibility lies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1973; Vol 866, c. 1470.]
It was important to quote in full that statement by the Chancellor, because it shows either an astonishing lask of candour, or such ignorance of the activities and affairs of local government as to be absolutely astonishing coming from the lips of a holder of that office. The fact of the matter is that in questions affecting the economy the integrity and posturing of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can only be likened to the meanest of Mississippi showboat gamblers.
To impose 20 per cent. cuts on capital expenditure in an area such as mine, to impose a 10 per cent. cut-back in services provided out of revenue in an area such as mine, will have a crippling effect on the progressive work of the London borough of Hackney. We are not, of course, responsible for education, but let it be said that we already know that the vital improvements which were proposed at 19 primary schools are to be deferred, except in the case of one of them.
I am most concerned, however, about the effect there will be on essential social services in my borough because, unlike certain Tory boroughs, we perform our statutory obligations to the homeless, an issue that is hardily recognised in areas such as Richmond. There they do not think that there is such a thing as home-lessness.
It is not something that can simply be talked about in terms of statistics and figures. In areas like ours, the welfare and social services enable thousands of people to lead more dignified and fuller lives than they could possibly do otherwise. The local authority takes the lead in the provision of such services and is assisted substantially by voluntary bodies which unquestionably will feel the pinch. To the handicapped, the elderly, the homeless and the deprived these things


represent a lifeline which in certain material respects can well be cut at this time when the pressures of the economic situation already will have a devastating effect.
Let me clothe this with the reality of the facts concerning the pensioners and the handicapped. Many of them depend on the meals-on-wheels service that is provided by my local authority and is assisted notably by a number of voluntary organisations, more particularly the Victoria Kosher meals on wheels service. Let us examine that for a moment.
To maintain the present service, let alone consider any reductions, a substantial increase in expenditure is contemplated. It has to be recognised that in Hackney, perhaps most especially in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), there are a large number of elderly Jewish pensioners who are orthodox, who cannot participate in the council's ordinary meals-on-wheels service for that reason. Many are housebound and are in desperate need of such a service.
The Victoria Kosher meals-on-wheels service runs three vans for over 300 elderly persons and a local handicapped club. It is stated on behalf of that service that, if it does not get the extra £1,700 that it needs for 1974, there will be problems.
We would have to depend more heavily on voluntary drivers",
it says,
and if the price of petrol goes on rocketing, then some will find it hard to keep up the work unpaid.
It is the people who can protect themselves least, therefore, the disabled and the handicapped—there are more of them in an area such as ours than probably in an area like Hornsey, which is represented by the Minister, although that is not an area without deprivation either—who are dependent on these services. Those are the people who will feel the brunt of this savage attack.
There has been no equality of sacrifice demanded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the meanest and most incompetent Chancellor to have been seen since the war. When I get angry about this situation it is because I see the effects

on my constituency of what is going on. My constituents are already terrified about it. It is not as though these are people who can stand up and fight for themselves. These are the very people about whom the Tory Party speaks so glibly when attacking the trade unions when Tories ask, "What about the pensioners?" Well, what about the pensioners and the handicapped? Will the Minister make a serious reply on this issue this morning?
Unhappily, in determining the cuts to be imposed and their effect, the local authority will have to determine how to allocate grants to voluntary organisations. There can be little doubt that, as with so many other places, Hackney will have to reduce such grants in some respects, much against the will and inclination of the local authority, which has expanded its services perhaps more than almost any other local authority. I emphasise that in my area these demands are not diminishing. They are rapidly increasing day by day, and petrol price increases on top will only make things even worse.
In Hackney we have a bold plan for a new centre at Ferncliff Road. A centre for the elderly, it was to provide a base for the meals-on-wheels service and cost £250,000. That plan has had to be put on to the scrap heap for another year. I invite the Minister to come to Ferncliff Road and look at the whole area and see how desperately that centre is needed.
In my constituency is the Kingsmead Estate which has been promised a centre since 1968. This is an estate with enormous problems and a community centre is vital. Yet we now know that it may well have to be delayed for another year, although the local authority is considering the situation to see whether it can get over these difficulties. If it cannot, let it be clear that the real responsibilities lies with this Tory Government.
Those are just two examples of plans that may have to be deferred with critical effects on the lives of thousands of people who cannot fight back. I turn to another issue causing great anxiety to those of us who represent the borough. It is the problem of homelessness.
Because the Hackney Council undertakes its statutory functions, it spends no less than £250,000 a year on the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation


for the homeless. Some Tories may say that that is frivolous expenditure and I heard one—I cannot remember which—say in the debate on 19th December that it would teach Labour authorities a lesson to cut out this form of frivolous expenditure. We do not regard dealing with the homeless as frivolous.

Mr. Ronald Brown: My hon. Friend will recall that there is the suspicion in our borough and many others that Tory boroughs in outer London actually pay homeless people in their areas to travel to our area so that they will not be responsible for rehousing them.

Mr. Davis: Yes, I am aware of that. It is more than a suspicion. I do not know whether they go to the lengths of paying people to do that. I suspect that they pay their fares, at the very least.
A whole number of outer London Tory authorities are as remiss in their obligations, which are legal obligations in this connection, as they are in dealing with the needs of areas of housing stress such as Hackney. We have had the scandal of Barnet in relation to its dealings with Brent, and the scandals of Bromley and of Richmond. They talk of increasing their allocation for provision of Greater London Council housing, but it is almost miniscule in comparison with the needs of the GLC and especially of the specific local authority areas within inner London. They are not only reneging upon their true responsibilities but are fostering class policies in order that they may not diminish their electoral chances. Nothing could be more abject than that sort of policy, and the Minister knows that full well.
Whether or not Richmond and all the other recalcitrant authorities recognise it, in inner London homelessness is worsening day by day. It is not a problem which will disappear just because they do not recognise it. Someone must recognise it. Areas which have a social conscience, such as Hackney, and which already have enormous housing problems, find themselves obligated to do this, and the problems are exacerbated because others fail to do so. The hoteliers who have to be paid for bed-and-breakfast accommodation cannot be told, "Because the Government have imposed a cut we are sorry but we shall have to cut the rates

that we pay you." They must be paid at the same rate. Therefore, the burden increases proportionately.
What sort of advice is the Minister's Department or the Department of Social Services giving to local authorities such as Hackney about the ways in which cuts are to be imposed? The Government are suggesting that salaries should not be cut, but supplies and services are to be cut. I think that they call it "the procurement area", as though they were dealing with the Mafia. It is absolute nonsense to deal with the situation on that basis. Apparently one can have labour standing by but unable to deal with the matters with which it is capable of dealing. Therefore, we want guidance on that issue from the Minister's Department and especially from the Department of Social Services.
We want to know what sort of analysis was made of the needs of the stress areas when these cuts were imposed, because they are across-the-board cuts. That is as nonsensical as the imposition of the three-day working week in certain areas. I do not, however, want to debate the three-day working week as a matter of principle. I would not dignify it in that way. There was no proper analysis of the needs of individual areas in respect of the three-day working week, and the same applies in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and I have been arguing since 1970—and before then, when we got rather more help from the Labour Government—that areas such as Hackney need special help. The Government have said, "You are right as a matter of principle, but it is the practice about which we are a little worried." We do not get the special help that we need. Urban aid to the voluntary organisations is useful but it hardly touches the basic problems that we face.
Does the Minister begin to understand the increasing hardships that are being experienced in inner London or in boroughs such as mine? By resiling from the promise given only a month ago of a 4½ per cent. growth in spending on education and social services his Department has administered a terrible judgment on Hackney and other areas. It all emanates from the Government's complete incompetence in handling our affairs. Their profligacy has led to the


current incredible balance of payments deficit, and they know that the miners' overtime ban has little to do with the disastrous state of the nation.
The Government have allowed the situation to get completely out of hand and in dissipating the nation's resources, in squandering the opportunities for industrial peace, in adhering to their outworn dogma, the judgment that falls from them upon the poor and deprived, who number so many in an area such as mine, will be savage indeed. However, those people will know where the responsibility lies and they will soon have the opportunity of making their voices heard.

7.57 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: At this late hour I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on the manner in which he has addressed himself to the problems facing our area. Hackney is perhaps one of the premier boroughs in the country. As for his general theme, we had a debate on 20th November in which we deployed the arguments about the chaos in London. There were two answers from the Government Front Bench, both completely inadequate and neither of them addressed to the problems described by my hon. Friends. We have been waiting for some sort of action to follow that.
The only development since we raised the question of London services grinding to a halt has been that the Government have turned out the troops in London. That was a new venture for which we still await an explanation. The only statement we had was that they were going to use the tanks on terrorists. That is an absurd and inadequate excuse. May we know why the tanks were put on the streets of London? Was that a rational reaction to a terrorist threat? If it was, will the Minister describe how that threat was to be dealt with? It was alleged there were four or five terrorists who had stolen a SAM missile. How were they to be dealt with if they could ever be found? There is therefore a suspicion in London that there is more to this than has been admitted. My hon. Friends and I will return to this matter if we are permitted, and provided a General Election does not intervene, to demand a much more

reasonable answer than we have had hitherto.
If an answer is not forthcoming we can make certain assumptions, but not least of all is the assumption that it was an absurd and silly reaction. Friends throughout the world are writing to me asking what is happening in Britain. People are withdrawing investments from this country, because they fear what is happening. Either there was a rational explanation for what the Home Secretary did, but which he has failed to give us, or it was sublime stupidity.
That was the only follow-up to the substantial debate on 20th November. My hon. Friends representing London constituencies and I were so concerned about the deteriorating situation in London that we decided by December that it would be a good idea if a deputation of us waited on the Prime Minister. I wrote to him on their behalf on 4th December asking him to receive us to discuss the continuing deterioration in the public services in London and to see whether we could have an advance on the inadequate replies by Ministers on 20th November.
The Prime Minister replied on 7th December that I would have seen that he had told my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) that he would be meeting Sir Reginald Goodwin on 19th December. He said that it was primarily a matter for the GLC, and in those circumstances he did not think there could be any advantage in his meeting our deputation.
I rang the Prime Minister's office, and told his secretary that although he was a London Member the right hon. Gentleman had not had the courtesy to attend our debate on 20th November, whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) had listened to the debate to understand the problems of the metropolis. I also said that, if the Prime Minister were unaware that the hospital service was not a matter for the GLC, the sooner he left politics in London the better. I asked the Prime Minister to review his attitude, but he refused to do so, and there has been only a continuing deterioration.
During an earlier debate on the Bill I put to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science many times the


problem of the children in my constituency who still have two half days a week out of school. That was the problem I highlighted on 20th November. I had previously had discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Time and again I asked the Under-Secretary what were his proposals to get the children in my constituency back to school full time. When he wound up the debate, with an appalling series of platitudes, he did not have the courtesy to refer to the matter once. On a point of order, I asked that somebody should instruct the Minister to address himself to the problems that were put to him.
We still have in the London Borough of Hackney, and in my constituency in particular, more children out of school than we have ever had. The Secretary of State's approach to the problem is indolent. She saw me to discuss the matter, and treated me with courtesy. I explained the problem to her, and I believe that after that meeting she appreciated perhaps for the first time the difficulties in the specific circumstances of my constituency. She offered to send the Under-Secretary and an inspector to look at the school in question. As is the usual form with this Government, I heard nothing. I telephoned the right hon. Lady's office and asked what had happened. It appeared that she had received the report from the inspector. The Under-Secretary of State, so it appeared, had also received the report. Many months later there are more children out of school and fewer teachers. The whole situation, to which I drew the right hon. Lady's attention in September, has deteriorated.
The present Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science seemed to find it inconvenient to refer to the matter. It is a great misuse of this House when Ministers are asked specific questions of which they have full knowledge and yet make no attempt to reply. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on his preferment. I trust that he will have a short but happy stay. I ask him to address himself to what the Government are doing to ensure that children in my constituency obtain full-time education as is demanded by the Act.
I noted in the Supply Estimates that the Department of Education and Science was making available another £4 million for direct grant schools. It appears that that is not subject to the 10 per cent. cut. It seems that more children in my constituency can be kept out of school, yet the Government feel that it is propitious to give £1 million, in addition to the £11 million which they have already given, to direct-grant schools which will be exempted from any cuts under the Chancellor's measures.
The three-day week is nonsense. Perhaps I do not take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis).

Mr. Clinton Davis: I was not suggesting in any sense that I approved of the three-day week as a matter of principle. I was being charitable about it. I believe it to be an alibi for the Government's complete failure in other directions.

Mr. Brown: I thought that my hon. Friend took that view. I am grateful to him for supporting my view.
If we accept that the Government are to go ahead with such a ridiculous charade, it must be understood that it has already caused grave concern in the constituencies of my hon. Friend and myself because of difficulties arising from the cycle. Difficulty has arisen in many of the industries in my constituency which have been allocated Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays because half the labour force is Jewish and the other half is Moslem. The Jewish community does not work on Saturdays and the Moslem community does not work on Fridays. The result is that some firms work only on Thursdays.
When I raised the matter with Ministers it appeared that they had not thought about it. They did not exactly laugh about it but they thought the matter rather humorous. They said that they would think about it. I am still waiting. The characteristic of this Government is that they never tell us. Often we do not know whether they have taken the argument on board.
I note that the Minister for Energy, in answer to a Written Question, said that he would consider whether to rotate the cycle if the charade of the three-day


week continued, so that firms allocated Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays would get a turn on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday rota and that those on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday rota would get a turn on the Thursday, Friday and Saturday cycle. The Minister is not even clear about that. He said that he would give consideration to the matter. As with most other matters, we shall probably hear no more about it.
A firm in my constituency has a labour force of nearly 2,000. In London terms it is quite substantial. I regret to say that the chairman is not one of my supporters. Nevertheless, I have had close contact with him for some years. He has received much patronage from the Conservative benches. He is chairman of this, that and the other. Name any organisation, and he is chairman of it. I say that with great respect, although he is not a Labour supporter. I would not expect him to try to create problems for a Conservative Government. But he pleaded with me about this when I spoke to him.
The day fixed for starting the three-day week charade was 31st December. That was not ordained by the Almighty but was decided by the Government. The Government were well aware, when they chose 31st December, that they had already agreed to 1st January being a national holiday and most firms had made arrangements well in advance. This industry has good labour relations and had discussed this with the trade unions and had agreed how to operate 31st December and 1st January, so when the Government ordained that 31st December should be the day to commence the three-day week charade these people were left in total disarray because they could work only on Wednesday of that week.
My constituent was not wanting to buck the system, or to attack the Government, but was asking that for that one week he could change to working on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or to have Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, letting him keep the agreement reached with his workpeople to avoid confusion.
I said, "I will have a go, but I do not think I shall get much response because this Government of yours is not exactly one which understands simple issues". So

I got in touch with the Department of Energy—or what was then the Department of Trade and Industry—and put the case. The man at the Ministry said, "It is an impressive case, but we cannot give dispensations". I said, "Don't be silly. You are ordering it to start. Surely when a case is put to you and last week there were no power cuts and this week there will be none, why have you to be so adamant about this firm?".
After a long discussion, they said, "It is not our responsibility now. We have discharged our responsibility. The regulation has been laid and, in London, the London Electricity Board has the responsibility of implementing the three-day week policy. We have laid it down in principle and if you can get the LEB to change this, you go ahead."
So, since we have a good relationship with the LEB, who do a good job, off we go to see the Chairman. At the LEB they said it was a matter for the Government, but I said, "No, they say you have a concession to implement the three-day week." After much discussion, the man talking with me said that it was a matter of complete indifference to him whether this firm had Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, or Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, or whether they chose to work Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. He said, "They will be subject to power cuts if any take place", but I said, "You have had no cuts before. Why should there be any now?". He replied, "Yes. I am only saying that if there are cuts they will have to have them." I said, "As far as you are concerned it is all right?", and he replied, "Yes. It is a matter of complete indifference to me which three days they have."
So, hot-foot, we went back to the Department of Trade and Industry. There the man said, "You mean to say that they have agreed? I will have a word with them." I said, "No. I don't want you to lean on them. All I want is a dispensation to my industrialist so that he feels he is an honourable guy." They said that they would telephone me back, and I was telephoned back at my constituency advice centre that evening when I was told that they had been through to the Chairman's office of the LEB who denied having said that to me. I commented, "That does not surprise me."
I found it outrageous that such a thing should happen in Government in any event. I asked, "What will you do about it? It is your responsibility." I was told that the chairman had been asked to telephone me later that evening. Sure enough, about eight o'clock I had a telephone call at my advice centre from the LEB. I was told that what I had said was right at the time it was said, but now the board was an agent of the Government and no longer free but had to do what the Government told the board to do. I said that the Government were on the slippery slope to dictatorship when they could lean on people and twist their arms in that way—that we were getting perilously too close to dictatorship which many of us fought a long time not to have. I told the board that I was astounded that it should have allowed this wretched Minister to lean on it in this way.
So 31st December came, and went. A solution was found with the good will of the workforce. We do not hear much about that sort of thing. The industry was able to function because of the good will of the workforce, with the management being prepared to discuss with the men. The fact that I had done my best on behalf of the firm satisfied the workforce that its help was needed.
I had a Question to the Minister and it was answered this morning—or yesterday. After a long sitting like this it is not easy to remember the date. I asked the Minister whether
having regard to the fact that he has appointed the London Electricity Board to act as agent for the Government in the implementation of its three-day work policy, what will be the financial cost of the board of carrying out that agency ; and what proportion will be borne by the Government.
I also asked, in another Question, whether the Minister was aware it was impossible to telephone the board about the very business it was set up to do—electricity supplying.
The answer the Minister gave me was,
I have not appointed the London Electricity Board as my agent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th January 1973 ; Vol. 867, c. 58.]
That is exactly what he has done. That is exactly what I was told. The Government lay down the policy, the board implements it. It is acting in the Minister's stead. One can only call that answer an utter untruth. The board is acting as

agent of the Minister and is not independent of the Minister. That is another illustration of the dangerous situation in which we find ourselves when even in this House Ministers are prepared to give that sort of untruthful answer, knowing that the facts do not coincide with it.
I return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend, and that is, money for local government, in London in particular. It is significant that we have not seen the like of this situation before. We have had some bad Tory Governments. I served in local government for more than 20 years, and was chairman of many committees. I had a number of skirmishes with Tory Governments. But I feel sorry for my colleagues in local government today having to deal with this Government, because it really is the world's worst. From all those years when I was in local government I do not recall an occasion when in London in January we did not know what the rates support grant was to be. The estimates have to be prepared to be approved at full committee meetings in February.
Even more tragic, the Government are now demanding a cutting of the services, but they have not said so. How can the Secretary of State demand a 20 per cent. cut on capital expenditure and a 10 per cent. cut in procurement? And if "procurement" means goods and services, why does he not say so? But the only way of observing his caveat that there should be no redundancy or unemployment is to cut goods and services, because local government is labour-intensive.
When asked which goods or services should be cut, I am advised, the Secretary of State said that that was not for him to say. When told that some services, such as the meals-on-wheels, cannot be cut, he says that he does not mind the rates being increased by up to 10p in the pound, but that if it goes beyond that, although he does not intend to take any sanctions, he will identify the area and tell the people there that he regards it as wrong that the local authority should have tried to spend that amount on services.
So the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not have the guts to order cuts in services and threaten sanctions for non-compliance. He adopts the bully boy attitude of which he is a past master.


This is another example of the Government not having the courage to stand by their own decisions and of trying to shuffle off responsibility for the results of their actions.
I have been trying for a long time to get more money spent on highways and pavements in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central knows this because, unlike many solicitors, he has been kind enough to help me in preparing the cases of elderly folk who have fallen and injured themselves on badly maintained surfaces and who have been thought to have a case for suing the council under the 1961 Highways Act.
It is now impossible to sue a council under the 1961 Act. I raised this matter in the House and with the Lord Chancellor's office on many occasions and I was told that this was because of the Appeal Court ruling in Meggs v. Liverpool Corporation in 1968 that because the paving stones were so out of line the unevenness was obvious and anyone falling over them did so through his own negligence. Anyone with sufficient money may test that ruling, but my constituents have not that sort of money and have to rely upon legal aid. The legal aid committee immediately decides that because of the 1968 ruling there is no reasonable case for testing the law. We have effectively negated the procedure of the 1961 Act by that 1968 ruling.
The Government take no interest and nothing has been done. People in my constituency are still falling over paving stones at the rate of about one a month. Elderly persons who fall over physically injure themselves and the shock of falling over may shorten their expected life-span.
The Secretary of State for the Environment tells local authorities that they cannot cut back on housing and certain other services but they can cut back on the maintenance of highways. He does so in full knowledge of the facts that I have given to the House. Paving stones are in a disgraceful state. Paving stones that are repaired on one day are broken again on the following day by 20-ton juggernauts going over them and snapping them. The Department of the Environment is powerless to do anything about it, yet local authorities are told to save

the 10 per cent. by cutting down on the maintenance of pavements and highways.
Are constituents of mine who fall over broken paving stones to have thrown at them the 1968 Appeal Court ruling, when the Government have wilfully said that pavements and roads are not to be properly maintained? I hope to be told what will happen to a constituent in those circumstances. Am I to understand that the Department of the Environment will take full responsibility, and should I send my constituent to the Secretary of State for the Environment rather than to the local authority as hitherto?
The Government are oblivious to the fact that the public services in London are grinding to a halt. Even at 6.30 am queues of cars can be seen on the roads into London.
Hospitals are closing down their operating theatres, teachers are unable or unwilling to teach in London's schools, so our children suffer. I could catalogue items showing that London is grinding to a halt. I ask the Government, recognising that—and they have never admitted that this is so—what will they do to help the London boroughs to understand how much money they have for works next year? When will the boroughs be told what their rate support grant is to be in figures? I do not want a White Paper at the end of the month, giving a formula no one can understand.
I heard an amusing story which I cannot believe is true. I am told that the Department of the Environment had determined the formula by using a computer. The Secretary of State was asked, "That's all very well. You have given us a formula. But tell us the reason for it". "Ah," said the Secretary of State, "I do not know why, but the computer says so." That is where we are. There is no explanation at all. I am told that the Secretary of State cannot and will not say why he is giving that formula. When the information was put into the computer an answer was given but there was no explanation because computers do not give explanations.
I understand that the White Paper may be published towards the end of the month in the hope that the computer has been re-programmed in such a way that it will explain its answer. We know that


London will suffer again. The basis of the formula is rateable value per capita. In London we have the highest rateable value per capita. We also pay the highest rates per head in the country. As a result of taking the rateable value per capita we are losing on the rate support grant. This is absolutely unforgivable. I understand that in this formula there is a bit of "put and take" and there is a glimmer of hope because it is alleged that in the end, when we know the figures, we shall be satisfied that it is not so bad.
It is time that the figures were known. How shall we work out the London equalisation scheme? The Minister and I know about it because we both worked on it years ago. We know that if the London equalisation scheme is not worked out by February it cannot be done at all. There are many boroughs which will suffer badly if the scheme is not determined. A whole range of issues flow from that and cannot be resolved. Will the Minister say how he believes the 32 London boroughs can determine a new scheme if they do not know the vital figures?
I have intervened more in sorrow than in anger. I do not believe that the Government are capable of carrying out their work. When we saw them on 20th November, we saw a Government stripped of any vestige of understanding. The water is over their heads. They are long past the time for getting out and I hope that today the Prime Minister will make his fateful decision and decide that the people of the country ought to have their say now. If he does not, then a very sad future faces us in London.

8.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hugh Rossi): May I thank the hon. Members for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) and for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) for their welcome on my first appearance at this Dispatch Box. I assure them that it is the intention of my colleagues and, I am sure, of the electorate as a whole to see to it that I make numerous appearances here over a long period of time.
I welcome this opportunity to answer a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central in view of our association over many years going back to our debating days as students.
Having exchanged those courtesies, I must say that I regret certain elements in the speeches of both hon. Members. They were in stark contrast to the very constructive tone which the Greater London Council and the London boroughs have taken in their discussions about cuts in public expenditure. Local authorities realise the difficulties that the nation faces, and they are responding in their desire to help the Government to meet the emergency we face.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central began by making a long quotation from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th December. The object of the quotation was to suggest that it was nonsense to say that cuts in expenditure would not involve an increase in the rates. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury went even further and said that in his opinion there would be a 10p increase in rates in London.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I said that it was possible that the local authorities would have to put up the rates by 10p and that I understood that the Secretary of State would be prepared to accept that figure.

Mr. Rossi: There is no justification in that assumption. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that their aim in the rate support grant settlement has been to ensure that the domestic ratepayer will not face unreasonable increases. Increases of the order suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be unreasonable.
With regard to the rate support grant, a White Paper is to be published shortly. Subject to printing, it is hoped that it will appear next week. It is inappropriate for me to anticipate what will be contained in that White Paper, but I think I can say that it appears that London will be slightly better off as a result of the rate support grant which will be announced in the White Paper and that the grant will provide for a 2 per cent. growth in real terms in local government for next year.
As for personal services, it is anticipated that there will be a 3·8 per cent. growth. I mention that specifically because of the fears which both hon. Members have expressed about these cuts in public expenditure and their effect upon personal services.
Having listened to the speeches very carefully, I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen as to what these cuts are about and what they seek to do. I hope that they will bear with me while I go into these matters in a little detail.
The reasons for the cuts were given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in the House on 17th December. He made it clear that the objective was to reduce public expenditure in areas where there would be a demand upon energy supply. Therefore, the reduction in public expenditure must not only be in such obvious things as heating and lighting of buildings but in the indirect demand for energy such as public construction programmes and public purchases of supplies of all kinds.
This was explained a little further in the circular issued by my Department on 19th December, No. 157/73, which made it clear again that demand must not exceed available resources in total in respect of particular supplies, especially those which make heavy demands on our limited resources of fuel. Therefore, it was determined to make these cuts which have been mentioned of 20 per cent. of planned capital expenditure for 1974–75 and 10 per cent. of procurement. This requires a little amplification, because obviously it is in this area that hon. Gentlemen have found some difficulty.
I have just referred to planned capital expenditure for the next financial year. Therefore, the current capital expenditure remains unaffected. In the future planned programme there was a significant measure of expansion over and above the current programme. Therefore, what is being asked for is a large measure of restraint which will still leave local government with some expansion, as the rate support grant envisages, and as I have already indicated.
The term "procurement" in the statement seems to cause some difficulty. Procurement is of goods and services, excluding wages and salaries and loan charges. It follows that since local government is a labour-intensive industry in which the wage bill forms a substantial part of current expenditure, a 10 per cent. cut in current expenditure not touching

wages and salaries and, additionally, loan charges is not as severe as it seems at first sight.
I should have mentioned, when speaking of a 20 per cent. cut in the proposed capital programme, that housing is specifically exempt. This is because of the high priority that the Government place on housing. The exemption applies not only to new house building by local authorities, but to general housing expenditure in the public sector. This includes housing associations, slum clearance, house improvements, improvement grants and local authority lending for private house purchasers.
Therefore, there are two important sectors in local government expenditure exempt from the cuts—first, in the staffing of personal services provided by an authority to its local community—this is inherent in the cut of 10 per cent. in procurement—and, secondly, in the provision of homes. These are exemptions of major significance for the London boroughs.
Having said that, I must add that I realise that the reductions that have to be made will not be easy to achieve. Inevitably, they will involve some disruption of planned programmes. Each authority will have to make its own decision on how best to achieve the cuts, but there are three priorities on which the Government have given guidance. First, essential services should be kept going. Secondly, authorities should reserve the ability to meet the exceptional needs of the community that could arise in the difficult years ahead. This implies meals on wheels and services for the elderly—people, who, in their private lives, would be most ill affected by the cuts that the nation is having to suffer. Thirdly, the disruption will be minimised if the reductions are concentrated in areas where fuel shortages are in any case likely to affect the supply of materials. Contrary to the impression which the hon. Gentleman sought to give, discussions are going on all. the time on these matters with the local authorities.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have it on impeccable authority that although the hon. Gentleman says guidance is being given, the quality of that guidance is very much in dispute. My authority finds that it is being given no real guidance. It is all


very well to talk about guidance and advice, but which services will be cut? In an area such as mine, what does the Minister regard as essential?

Mr. Ronald Brown: Saving 10 per cent.

Mr. Rossi: As I said, each authority makes its own decision within the priorities indicated. Whatever the source of the hon. Gentleman's information, he is being less than fair to the officials of my Department, because discussions have taken place and guidance has already been given on the allocation of the reductions.

Mr. Brown: Which services?

Mr. Rossi: A further, more detailed circular dealing with the matter is to be issued.

Mr. Brown: Which services?

Mr. Rossi: If there is time, I shall deal with some of the individual services.
The 20 per cent. cuts in capital expenditure comprehensively affect the following: the locally determined sector allocation, which is now fixed for 1974–75 at £278 million, the large projects pool, which will be issued shortly, and the financing of capital projects from revenue. Local authorities will also be required to reduce their expenditure on land acquisition for key sector purposes other than housing, even though this is not directly controlled by the Government.
With regard to the reduction in current expenditure by 10 per cent. of expenditure on procurement, the intention is not to cut staff, particularly those in personal services. Inevitably, however, it will not be possible to maintain work for some staff where, because of a national shortage, materials are not available for their work. In those circumstances, the Government will expect local authorities to be flexible in achieving cuts and the priorities that I have mentioned, and in maintaining efficiency through redeployment and the re-use of staff on other work.
So far I have spoken about general principles in relation to the cuts and the priorities to which regard must be had, and I should now like to turn——

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Minister promised to describe in detail the cuts

which he thinks can be made. What my authority and I want to know is which services the Minister suggests should be cut.

Mr. Rossi: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's impatience, but if he had allowed me to complete my sentence he would have heard me say that I wanted to deal with particular services, especially those in London, that are likely to be affected.
I refer first to education, because that was the first service referred to by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central. As a result of the moratorium in October 1973, the Department of Education and Science's 1973–74 building programme has been extended to 30th June 1974. The cuts announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that, in the ILEA area, 14 replacement or improvement projects for primary schools costing nearly £3 million are likely to be lost from the 1973–74 programme, but primary schools costing £296,000 will probably go ahead.
In the 1974–75 programme for the ILEA area, one primary school is likely to be approved at a cost of £157,000, but up to 18 primary school improvement projects are likely to be lost, totalling about £3½ million.
Despite these cuts, the basic need for additional places will still be met, special school projects will go ahead, the 1974–75 nursery allocations already announced remain valid, but will run from 1st July 1974 to 30th June 1975, and the minor work allocations remain, though on a reduced scale. Reduction of capital expenditure from revenue by local education authorities will not be at the expense of employed people, namely, teaching and non-teaching staff, or at the cost of essential education supplies, such as books. The expenditure will be reduced by postponing repairs and maintenance and by a delay of replacement of less essential equipment.
As for the health and personal social services, details of how the reduction of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure in 1974–75 will affect the Department of Health and Social Security programme have not yet been worked out, and so I cannot help hon. Members about that, but the social service projects, such as residential accommodation for the elderly,


will inevitably be restricted to a lower level than had been envisaged, and authorities will be notified as soon as possible which projects may be given provisional approval, with a view to their receiving approval in principle and, if resources permit, final approval in 1974–75.
Local health authority building projects, such as health centres and clinics, will be taken over by the new health authorities on 1st April 1974, but to avoid a hiatus in building the Department of Health and Social Security will continue to approve new health centre projects after that date and will notify individual local authorities whether contracts may be placed before them, but the number of new starts will be substantially less than local authorities would wish.
The hon. Member referred to the road programme. Local authorities were asked not to let new principal road contracts after 20th December pending a review by my Department of the national picture. The Department has acted similarly on trunk road contracts. Local authorities have been told that there is no present intention of interfering with contracts already let but that the prospect of starting new schemes in the near future is poor. Since 1st September 1973, contracts have been let and started for about £9 million on which the estimated expenditure in 1974–75 will be £3·5 million, and the decision not to place new contracts for the time being affects about £9 million worth of contracts which are ready for letting.
In the time available to me I have tried to deal with some of the specific areas covered by the hon. Member. I conclude simply by emphasising that this is a time of a national energy crisis in which every individual in the nation is affected. It requires the co-operation of every one of us to see the nation through these difficult times. This means doing without some of the things we would like to have had. In this the local authorities have been asked to make their contribution, particularly where their future programmes would have had a significant effect upon the national energy supplies.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The Chancellor conceded that this had nothing to do with the energy crisis. It was due to the

terrifying balance of payments deficit and the profligacy of the Government. The Chancellor said that he would have had to introduce these cuts regardless of the crisis.

Mr. Rossi: I am sorry I gave way. That is simply not true. I invite the hon. Member to read the statement, and in particular the extract which is appended at the end of Circular 157/73. There the rationale of the request for capital and procurement cuts is given in detail. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is clearly related to the problem of energy supply. If he and his colleagues do not recognise this, the local authorities do. I conclude as I opened. The speeches of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends are in regrettable contrast to the very constructive, helpful way in which the local authorities are approaching this national emergency.

Orders of the Day — GIPSIES (HERTFORDSHIRE)

8.58 a.m.

Mr. James Allason: Bovingdon is a pleasant Hertfordshire village in the green belt and in my constituency. An airfield was developed there at the beginning of the war which was used by the Royal Air Force and by the United States Air Force. The RAF gave it up a few years ago. Besides the airfield there are several sites used for hutted encampments in connection with the base.
The particular site which I wish to discuss is at Middle Lane, where there were huts and buildings, but these have been demolished down to the concrete base and the site has been left pending a decision on its future use. It has been handed over by the Ministry of Defence to the Property Services Agency, which in turn is responsible to the Department of the Environment. Unfortunately, it has not kept the fencing in good condition.
On 12th September six gipsy caravans came on to the site. At that stage they were those of Romany gipsies. The Ministry of Defence, which had been thought to be the owner of the site, was immediately informed by the rural district council. But more caravans came on to the site. On 13th September there were nine caravans there. The police were asked to move them on. They were


trespassing, but the police said that they could take no action without the authority of the owner. However, the police had to return because on 14th September there was some sort of shooting affray at the site. On 15th September there was a serious fracas. The police and ambulances had to be called, and people had to be treated for injuries caused by broken glass.
I was informed on 19th September that the local authority was not able to get an answer out of the Government on this matter. I wrote to the Ministry of Defence, still then believed to be the owner of the site, on 20th September. On 9th October the Ministry of Defence informed me that the site had been handed over to the Property Services Agency which had been asked to take action. I then confidently awaited action being taken. However, I heard nothing. At short notice, therefore, on 25th October I asked the following Question of the Secretary of State for the Environment:
when he will seek to evict the trespassers on Government land at Middle Lane, Bovingdon, who have been there since 12th September.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development replied:
It is the Government's general policy that gipsies should not be moved around needlessly, and a move depends upon the availability of alternative sites provided by the county council. Although Hertfordshire has made good progress in the provision of authorised sites, I understand that there are at present no vacancies upon such sites for the half-dozen or so gipsy families now at Bovingdon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 641.]
I then received a letter from my right hon. Friend dated 26th October, in which he said,
I am replying to your letter of 20th September… with which you enclosed this one… about gipsies on the disused RAF site at Middle Lane, Bovingdon… Under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 the county, county borough and London borough councils in England and Wales have a duty to provide caravan sites for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas. However, since the Act came into force in April 1970, progress with site provision has been slow. At present, therefore, the majority of gipsies in the country are unable to camp on authorised sites.
In this situation we have felt it only right to advise that gipsies should not be needlessly moved on when there is no official site for them to go to. While it is true that Hertfordshire County Council have a record

of site provision second to none, they have a large gipsy problem and still have a considerable way to go in accommodating all their families. I understand that there is no room at present on any of the council's official sites for the Bovingdon families.
I appreciate the local concern about encampments, such as that at Middle Lane, but we have to face the fact that, if gipsies are moved on from such a site, it might simply transfer the problem elsewhere. The real solution is, as we have frequently reiterated, the provision of sufficient sites throughout the country. We are currently examining what fresh steps we might take to accelerate site provision. In the meantime, I suggest that the local authorities in whose areas unauthorised encampments exist should consider what immediate steps can be taken to alleviate any nuisance. They might, for example, find suitable temporary sites or provide temporary refuse clearance and toilet facilities on existing sites.
I hope you will find this a useful amplification of the Answer I gave on 25 October in reply to your Question in the House.
So the Government were then examining fresh steps. At this stage naturally there were a great many complaints about what was happening. However, I counselled patience because, first, I was hoping for Government action in conjunction with the county to do something about the problem at Middle Lane and, secondly, I was assured that these gipsies would not take gladly to others entering the site and would protect it against invaders. Thirdly I feared the effect of publicity. I was worried that if I made too much of a public fuss at that stage it would alert the gipsy fraternity and all itinerant didicois to the fact that the Government were keeping open house on a site which would accommodate a consideratble number of caravans and that the Government were not prepared to seek to evict them.
I had excellent co-operation from the local papers. For example, when there was a considerable fracas as a result of a wedding party the newspapers did not attribute this to the caravan dwellers and the incident passed off as just one of those things. The Press could have made a great deal of the fact that this was a gipsy fracas.
My expectation proved to be groundless. The situation remained extremely bad. There is no sanitation or water supply on the site, which became littered with rubbish. Entrance gates were broken down and the barbed wire removed. Then the worst fears were realised. On


4th December three more caravans came on to the site, bringing the total to 10. Smoke and fumes were produced on the site and life was made extremely unpleasant for local residents.
On 6th December I wrote to my right hon. Friend suggesting that the gates should be properly reinstated and firmly closed, that anyone who should wish to leave the site could do so on application to the police. This action would at least have prevented any further invasion of caravans on to the site. The method had proved satisfactory in the past and it seemed a perfectly reasonable one. It would not amount to harassment of the people already on the site but it would stop more coming on. However, no action was taken on that and I have received no reply whatever from my right hon. Friend to the letter of 6th December.
By the following day there were 15 caravans on the site and since then the numbers have fluctuated. On 20th December there were 11. On 27th December I reminded my right hon. Friend that I was awaiting a reply from him. On 9th January I again reminded him that I was awaiting a reply. I have had no reply to any of these letters.
In my letter of 9th January I pointed out some of the difficulties. of the site, and the questions my constituents are putting to me. First, what rights have didicois to behave in a way in which an ordinary resident is not permitted to behave? Secondly, there is the fact that on 3rd January there was another fracas on the site, apparently a mass fight in the middle of the night, which made a terrifying noise. Thirdly, there being no sanitary provision on the site, the ditches are being used as latrines. Fourthly, there is the fact that both hedges and trees are being damaged—and the site is in a green belt. Fifthly, dogs are constantly barking and trespassing. Because the hedges are broken down, they cannot be kept on the site. Sixthly, the Government, as landlord, surely have a responsibility to deal with these matters. It seems entirely reasonable that they should deal with them. I have a host of letters from people who are affected. I intend to supply copies to my right hon. Friend and to ask for a reply to each.
I seek in this debate to raise the general complaint of many people that they are being treated in a thoroughly unsatisfactory way by the Government's putting up with actions which would not be tolerated from a private individual. It appears that the Government are not prepared to protect the law-abiding citizen, but rather are prepared to protect those who flout the laws.
There is shouting and obscene language to be heard by day and night. There is also dangerous driving. At a crossroads near the site, the didicoi vans take no notice of the system of road markings but just shoot across the road in an extremely dangerous manner. It is fairly well known that these people are not usually satisfactorily insured, and if there is an accident it will be extremely unpleasant for any local resident involved.
If it were dealing with a private landowner the rural district council would have served notice that he should not harbour trespassers, and it would act against the site under the Town and County Planning Act and the Health Acts. But it is advised that because the landowner is the Crown it is not entitled to take action. It is unsatisfactory that the Crown should shelter behind its privilege and not be prepared to comply with the law which it requires everybody else to comply with.
It is no good my hon. Friend the Minister's saying that these people should not be moved on. When they have made a thorough nuisance of themselves for so long, it is possible to move them on. It has been done on the A41. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) has raised on a previous occasion the condition of the verges on the A41. Action was taken and the gipsies were moved on.
Bovingdon has suffered for long enough. I demand that prompt action is taken. There is a clear requirement to lock up the site. I have demonstrated that not just one large family of gipsies is sitting on the site but that there are different caravans constantly going in and out. The Department is keeping open house.
In a letter to me my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development refers to the requirement


under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide an adequate number of caravan sites. Hertfordshire has supplied over 100 standings for itinerants. A few years ago that might have been enough. The present position is that at least 200 caravan standings are required before there is any hope that such a large county as Hertfordshire could be designated under the Act. Following designation, once the county has provided an adequate number of sites for its own gipsies, severe action can be taken against others who behave in the way I have described. Bovingdon has had to put up with so much during the past few months.
It must be observed that by the time Hertfordshire provides another 100 sites there will be another 100 sites needed. It is difficult for such a large county to apply for designation as a whole. It has applied for the designation of West Hertfordshire, which has provided the lion's share of the sites which are already in the county. It seems that West Hertfordshire has had to bear the brunt of the invasion by these people.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of changing the law so that there might be partial designation. I sincerely hope that any legislation which is introduced this Session before we come to any dissolution will establish the opportunity to obtain partial designation. If such legislation cannot be introduced during this Session, let it be introduced early next Session.
I object to the fact that the Government are encouraging the law to be broken. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure me that action will be taken on this blight on the village of Bovingdon.

9.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I am unable to give immediate comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). I know that that will be a real disappointment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Rossi: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that I know that my hon. Friend will be disappointed

because of the way in which he has so assiduously and persistently pursued this difficult problem on behalf of his constituents. There is no ready easy answer. My hon. Friend has complained that he has been awaiting a reply for some time from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. I know that my hon. Friend has this matter under anxious and active consideration and it is simply because there is no immediate and ready solution that a reply has not yet been sent to my hon. Friend. I shall speak to my right hon. Friend and draw his attention to the remarks which have been made and see what can be done for an early reply to be given to him.
However, I must make it clear, because of the remarks which have been made, that the Government do not give a licence for any sort of behaviour and that they will not underwrite or accept violence and theft or social habits which are not tolerable in our community.
There are also, in gipsy encampments, on occasion, reasons of public health which necessitate action being taken to disperse an unauthorised encampment, but it is not sufficient simply to disperse one. That only transfers the problem elsewhere, and that is the difficulty with which we are faced in this case.
The Caravan Sites Act, 1968 made a determined attempt to tackle the problem by placing on local authorities the duty to provide sites properly placed in suitably chosen locations, to provide better facilities, and to enable those who wish to do so to settle and secure a better education for their children. Such sites get rid of the insanitary conditions so often associated with gipsy encampments, and it is recognised that Hertfordshire is a foremost authority in providing sites. That is to its credit.
Hertfordshire has appointed an officer with responsibility for gipsies, to coordinate county efforts and to ensure that the council is fully informed about and has contact with the gipsies in the area. That is something we should like to see all counties do.
For that reason, it is often more difficult for the Government to feel they are being regarded as unsympathetic to the pleas coming from Hertfordshire, through my hon. Friend, to deal with this particular difficulty at Bovingdon. The problems


are recognised and are being considered. My right hon. Friend is actively dealing with the matter.
I hope that in the near future he will be able to come forward with proposals for helping my hon. Friend.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
9.24 a.m.


Allason, James (Kernel Hempstead)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Morrison, Charles


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhart, Philip
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gorst, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Sir Raymond
Parkinson, Cecil


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gray, Hamish
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Raison, Timothy


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Havers, Sir Michael
Sainsbury, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Hawkins, Paul
Scott, Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hiley, Joseph
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Sproat, lain


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Drayson, Burnaby
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Tebbit, Norman


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tugendhat, Christopher


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, R. N.
Weatherill, Bernard


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Wiggin, Jerry


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilkinson, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Norman
Monro, Hector
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis and


Fox, Marcus
Morgan-Giles, Rear- Adm.
Mr. Adam Butler




NOES


Nil


TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mr. Ronald Brown and


Mr. Clinton Davis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

Mr. Bernard Weatherill (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Bernard Weatherill (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 0.

POLICE (HARTLEPOOLS)

9.33 a.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools): In bringing this matter of police conduct to the attention of the House I am merely adding to a very extensive body of legal, professional and lay opinion. Numbers of specific cases of the misuse of police powers have been exposed, The Press has done a remarkable amount of investigatory reporting. Parliament has debated the matter, and various organisations have made available an abundance of information. I have received many letters from many parts of the country underlining public concern. The police force


itself is actively concerned with the problem, and Sir Robert Marks, Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, has made his views well known.
But I have to say that, during a quarter of a century of working and public life in Hartlepool, I have not had a single complaint which merited more than a reasoned discussion to settle it, with the exception of the past two years. In this latter period more and more complaints have come to my notice. In the beginning, drawing on past experience I sought to make the complainant feel easier rather than encourage any action, but eventually I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I was out of step with reality.
Since I have prepared a fuller report which I shall be sending to the Home Secretary I will deal here with only one or two cases, some considered opinion, and the principles I invoke as of paramount importance.
There should be no question of the priority need to control the chilling intrusion on privacy, to protect individual rights, uphold the law and promote desirable changes in it by democratic processes. We should oppose brutality and violence on every front as alien forces in the conduct of our public and personal affairs. Nor should we countenance the misuse of power and privilege which deprives others of their dignity and freedom. I take it for granted that everyone has the right to be treated with decency, fairness and justice. Influence, authority and power are not tolerable in a parliamentary democracy if they do not serve the interests of the people as a whole.
I also take it for granted that if we are to avoid the growth of totalitarian roots in our society or the spectre of Orwellian control over our lives we must have the courage to speak up and act whenever there are signs which threaten the character and nature of our people.
I turn now to some considered opinion. Mr. Dennis Paling, barrister-at-law, in the "Criminal Review" of May last year observed in respect of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964":
However there are numerous opportunities for evasion open to the policeman. First there is the understandable difficulty of persuading one policeman to give evidence

against another. There may be pressures from superiors to say nothing, thus in the Leeds police enquiry the police cadet who originally made the complaint was first told by his superiors to forget it.
Mr. Paling then referred to a very serious case of police assault and brutality. His observations included comments on unlawful entry, police methods of postponing investigations, and the police practice of making charges of assault against themselves by complainants.
Turning to the debate on 23rd February 1973 introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), Mr. Paling wrote:
The Home Secretary intervened in the debate and said that he personally had long held the view that the introduction of an independent element into police complaint procedure is essential".
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) quoted the Home Secretary in his Adjournment debate on 11th April 1973 as saying:
I must also be able to tell people with confidence that where there are black sheep among the police forces they will be sought out and dealt with without fear or favour and without any suggestion of matters being covered up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April 1973 ; Vol. 851, c. 994.]
That view I submit to the House was a considered view and a view reflecting an awareness of a growing problem.
The issue of The Guardian of 3rd November 1972 refers to a case where police pressures were placed on a man in Durham. Detectives attempted to force him to become an informer. The Guardian offered to make tapes, names, and photographic evidence available proving the blackmail technique and showing an excess of filthy language calculated to coerce the man to do something he did not want to do.
Moreover, the Sunday Times of 28th November 1971 referring to the case of a man who died describes the notorious Leeds Police Mafia and adds:
It was unfortunate that Mr. Oluale was pitchforked into the hands of two brutal policemen of a force in which some aspects of discipline and integrity had decayed…".
One of the officers in the case had been previously concerned with "fixing" evidence. Eight officers in that division had been convicted in the previous two years. Young officers were afraid of the


Police Mafia—ten officers—and in evidence one stated,
We felt there was no senior officer we could turn to.
On 5th March 1972 The Observer described two cases of corruption, an exposure subsequently resulting in 144 officers being found in breach of police discipline. The paper observed:
The police could not be trusted to inquire into the dirty laundry in their own house.
Between 1965 and 1972 the number of complaints by chief officers of police rose from 6,736 to 9,872 in England and Wales. The cases substantiated have risen from 756 to 1,100. The cases referred to the Director of Public Prosecution have increased from 433 to 1,788. These figures are alarming but they raise very pertinently the doubts about the complaints procedures. As Mr. C. H. Rolph, a writer and penal expert, has said:
In my belief nothing could do more to improve the public image of the police service than the considerable sacrifice of a jealously guarded autonomy.
Early last year Tom Harper, journalist, reported in The Sunday Times
Figures I have dug out show dramatically of the 4,314 complaints recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 1971, 1,316 were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Criminal proceedings followed in 104 cases. There were 93 traffic offences. But 92 per cent. of the cases were filtered back to the police and disciplinary action was taken in only 41 cases.
I conclude this brief reference to considered opinion, which is only a fragment of the total record and statistical account, by turning to a quotation from Sir Robert Marks, Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He has stated:
It is equally certain that for those very few who let down the Department, the force or service for personal gain or other improper motive there must be and there shall be a reckoning.
I have already indicated the time-scale of change at the Hartlepool police station. The Home Secretary is aware of the suspension of the chief superintendent of police. On that I make no comment, except as a statement of fact. Nevertheless, in proceeding with Hartlepool matters I want to stress once again that in my view the majority of police in Hartlepool are men of considerable ability and work in accordance with the highest standards.
I shall be sending the Home Secretary letters. One refers to the treatment of a man by the name of Ron Hoyle. He was attacked by officers belonging to the Drug Squad. A witness informs me in writing of brutal treatment, filthy language and piercing screams of pain. He describes at length his concern and appeal for the beating to stop and how he was threatened by the police. He added:
The atmosphere was so tense that if the noise in the kitchen had not been stopped we would not have been able to tolerate orders from these thugs any longer.
Mr. Ron Hoyle had to be taken to hospital in a state of collapse. He was treated for a small abrasion over the left eye. I have seen his hospital admission report. It is headed:
Collapse. Drunk? Drugs.
I have questioned the hospital group secretary on these headings and he admitted freely that the drugs entry was possibly suggested by the police. He confirms that no medical test was made which produced any evidence of drugs whatever.
A letter from another constituent states, with reference to police conduct towards her son:
They physically held my boy against the panda car, slapped his face and called him a long-haired bastard.
Two young people protested about the treatment. The young boy was released. He returned home in a serious state of distress. No charge was ever made against him. He has never committed an offence in his life.
Another constituent complains how a policeman took his educationally subnormal son to the police station. His letter accuses the constable of telling his son that he would keep him there until 10 p.m. unless he told him what he wanted to know. It is claimed that the boy, aged 17, was threatened with a statement that the police nearly crippled a man who refused to tell what they wanted to know.
An investigation was made in this case by the police. The charges are not sustained.
But, as one senior officer told me the other day, from his personal experience at the end of these kind of investigations,
You are not certain you are right."—
meaning that the police were not certain they were right. What is wrong


in my view is that this young, educationally subnormal lad was deprived of his rights under the Judges Rules. His is the very kind of case which needed the presence of a friend and certainly his parents because, not understanding the full implications of words, he could have incriminated himself, although he was innocent.
Recently I have had to deal with a situation where a young man's father went to the police station freely, to be helpful. On that occasion a detective constable took the young man into a room and refused to allow the father to be present. The young man was told that the detective had evidence that he had committed an offence and that in the circumstances he had better admit it. The young man has not been charged. The evidence was lacking and the approach was clumsy and offensive, to say the least.
Another person has written to me saying that he went to the police station to make an inquiry. He was told by a detective constable to get out, using a choice expression of obscene language, a term consistent with other accounts I have heard.
There is a case of a young man who accused the police of brutality. The police report on the case asserts that his wounds were self-inflictd. My agent saw these wounds and later I saw photographs of them. I still remain unconvinced that the nature of these wounds could have been totally self-inflicted.
In December of last year one of the oldest employers in Hartlepool, and one of the largest employers of labour there, complied with the statutory requirements of the Customs and Excise investigatory branch and the police came to his bonded premises. They jostled the women workers back up the stairs as they were leaving, pushing some in a manner which raised objections, made them stand against a wall, facing it with their hands upon the wall while they were searched. Some women were stripped in circumstances which they claim was humiliating and not totally private. Nothing was found, no charges were made, not a word of apology was offered. The official responsible in this firm, a man of considerable experience, discussing the matter with me stated that the police method was completely foreign to him. He was talking,

too, with experience because he referred to a case two and a half years previously when a pilfering problem was investigated with some efficiency and without raising objections. I understand that the head of this firm is similarly annoyed with the police method.
I want now to turn to the case of Peter Lund. This man had committed no offence. He called at the police station with his wife to make an inquiry about his brother. This man is a registered disabled person with only one healthy lung who has been warned not to exert himself. He was a male nurse but has had a period of not being fit for anything but light work. I understand he carries a card to identify him and recommend what action to take to assist him should he become ill in a public place.
This man was brutally assaulted in the police station. Only police officers and the man's wife were present. I have examined a copy of the hospital accident treatment card from St. Hilda's Hospital dated 4th September 1973.
I saw the man myself shortly afterwards. A nurse is reported as having said, "They"—meaning the police—"must be like bloody animals". Mr. Lund was in the hospital for about an hour. He was taken there handcuffed. A laceration under the chin had to be stitched. His teeth were broken and fractured, and there was bruising on his body and arms. He suffered some considerable pain. Mr. Lund claims he was kicked in the teeth. His wife asserts she pleaded with the officers to stop hitting him because of his disability. One officer replied "He'll be more than disabled when I have finished with him".
It is not uncommon in such cases which get out of hand for the police to make a charge of assault. Legal opinion has confirmed this. Later an officer asked Lund if he would be pleading guilty or not guilty to a charge of assault. Mr. Lund said, "Not guilty". He was then told, "If you do we'll make your life a hell." I have in my possession the man's disablement certificate dated 10th January 1973.
In some cases I have dealt with I have not mentioned officers' names. On balance I have taken the view that, though


my constituents have suffered, over-exuberance, indiscretion or misjudgment does not call for any further description. In some cases the police authority refuses to make the names available. But in the Lund case the record is clear from a Press report. In the Crown Court the police charges were not upheld. Mr. Lund was acquitted.
From the Press report it transpired that PC McGuinness had refused to let Mr. Lund see his brother. Sergeant Anthony Flynn and PC Brian Stork then appeared on the scene. Apparently they took over and PC McGuinness claims he saw nothing more. Detective Constable Victor Shadforth then appeared after Lund had been dragged out of the station and dragged back. Lund was being held by his hair and an arm. A Press account describes how Shadforth punched Lund in the face, kicked him on the floor and how PC Stork jabbed him in the solar plexus.
None of these police officers could say in court how Lund had received his injuries. In his summing up of this case Mr. James Chadwin, for Lund, said:
It was unlikely Lund would have picked a fight with any of these officers. All three were around 6 feet in height. Two weighed more than 16 stone, and the other 14½ stone. Lund weighed 10½ stone and was registered as a disabled person spending a lot of time in hospital with lung trouble.
I must point out that Mr. Lund was told privately that one of the officers involved had been before a disciplinary committee on two previous occasions, but there had been insufficient evidence. Some of us can understand that. But I must also add that Detective Constable Shadforth's name has come to my attention on more than one occasion.
In the early stages Mr. Lund naturally complained to the police. But later, reflecting on his unfair treatment, he wrote to the police stating that since he had no confidence in them he did not want a police investigation which amounted, in his view, and in the view of many others throughout the country, to the police investigating themselves. That request was ignored.
He has received a letter from the police authority stating the matter has been fully investigated under the provisions of the Act and the conclusion

reached that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings against the officers. Mr. Lund has never appeared before an independent police investigating body.
A police officer called at his home for a statement and, before doing so, told Mrs. Lund to go into the kitchen. In her own home, she naturally refused. Mr. Lund has never been given a copy of the Home Office leaflet explaining his rights in the complaints procedure.
So here we have a man proven innocent in the courts feeling the last resounding smack of police conclusions about themselves. One might ask, since he is not capable of kicking his own teeth in, where the truth really lies in a situation where the evidence points clearly to the presence of police officers only. A malicious attack on a disabled man cannot be justified in any circumstances.
I should have preferred not to mention the names of these officers, but they have already appeared in the Press. I regret not having asked for an investigation earlier through the Home Office. The conclusion of the investigation is dated 7th December. I have not, therefore, had an opportunity of taking that course. Nor did I deem it right to seek to take that course once the police had investigated and drawn their own conclusions, because I could not foresee the Home Office altering that kind of decision.
I hope that the Home Secretary will speedily introduce measures, now held to be necessary by a considerable body of opinion, in the interests of the general public and the deserving majority of good police officers. That is important. Regional tribunals offer a solution, with legally qualified chairmen and members appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Such bodies should have the power to subpoena witnesses and to award damages. The complainant and the police should have legal advice and representation on equal terms. All this is possible, including measures to protect the police where criminal proceedings may be involved. But, whatever the solution, the present state of affairs must come to an end.

9.53 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): In the 10 minutes


at my disposal I will try to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter.) This Adjournment debate relates to Hartlepools, but in the first part the hon. Gentleman referred to various cases from other parts of the country. I do not know what his purpose was in doing that, but I should point out that in the Leeds case, as a result of police investigation, a police officer was prosecuted and convicted and later an inquiry was held.
If the purpose of his general point is that it is necessary to have a proper complaints procedure for complaints against the police, that I accept. But I should point out that a complaints procedure already exists. Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 provides that when a chief officer of police receives a complaint from a member of the public against a member of his force, he must record that complaint and cause it to be investigated. The investigating officer will normally be of the rank of superintendent or above, he will be from a different division from that of the officer against whom the complaint is made, and, if the chief officer considers it desirable, he may bring in an officer from another force to undertake the investigation.
On receiving the investigating officer's report, the chief officer must send it to the Director of Public Prosecutions unless he is satisfied that the report contains no allegations of criminal offences. The Director then decides whether it is appropriate to institute criminal proceedings, and under the present procedure the Director informs the complainant of the result.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a full and thorough system for the investigation of complaints against the police and I am perfectly satisfied from my experience in the Home Office that complaints against the police are fully, firmly and thoroughly investigated when they are brought to light. What cannot be done is to investigate complaints of which notice has not been given to the police.
In almost every case that the hon. Member has mentioned today, what he has just said is the first knowledge I have had of those cases. The first knowledge that the Home Office has had

of those cases was when he chose to refer to details of the cases in public in the House of Commons today. One cannot carry out an investigation or request it to be carried out unless a complaint is made and one has the opportunity to investigate it.
The hon. Member quoted other people who had said they believed that there was a need for an independent element in the investigation of complaints into the police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear earlier last year that he accepted that case. He has had a working party looking into methods of providing for an independent element, an ex post facto review of complaints against the police where an individual complainant was dissatisfied. That working party has now completed its work and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to make an announcement.
I must deplore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has referred to various cases here today and presumably, by referring to them, has given credence to the allegations that have been made, without giving any opportunity to have those allegations properly investigated.
As long ago as September last year, the hon. Gentleman gave wide coverage in the Press to numerous allegations which, he said, he had against members of the Hartlepool police. As long ago as 20th September, having set out again serious allegations which he said he had against the town's police, he said that he was sending a dossier of five separate incidents to the Home Secretary. We are now in January 1974, and not one word have we heard on any of those matters from the hon. Gentleman since the publicity he achieved on 20th September, making allegations against the Hartlepool police, until he has repeated them here today.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have just said that the report is now complete and is being forwarded to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate that. The hon. Gentleman has said this morning that he is now about to send the report to the Home Secretary. I will await with interest the receipt of that report. To the extent that it contains details of complaints against the police, I assure him that they will be investigated.
The point I was making was that as long ago as September last year the hon. Member chose to get a great deal of publicity, making various allegations against the Hartlepool police, and he said at that time that he had a dossier which he was sending to the Home Office. Instead of seeing it, however, we have heard nothing from him until now, when he chooses to repeat his allegations here.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member has gone about the matter in this way, because by doing so he appears to give credence to what are only allegations and at the moment one does not know whether they are accurate. I regret that the hon. Member chose to do it in this way, because I believe that the effect is to cast doubt on the integrity of officers of the force.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the suspension—he is right—of the chief superintendent. The chief superintendent was suspended, as the hon. Member has said, as a result of a purely internal disciplinary matter. The matter is in no way connected with any of the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made. No member of the general public was in any way involved in the issue which led to the suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings, of the chief superintendent. That should be made clear lest it be felt that his suspension was in any way linked to the type of allegations which the hon. Gentleman has made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to one case which I have been able to investigate. That was the case of Mr. Lund. In that case an investigation was carried out. The Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted, and Mr. Lund was informed that the director did not consider that action was justified. It was the hon. Gentleman himself who, on 28th November, took by hand to the police a letter written by Mr. Lund in which he said that he, Mr. Lund, could not have any confidence in the investigatory process, that he had decided to consider another approach to the problem and that any further communication between him and the police would be unnecessary. It hardly falls to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the nature of that inquiry in

view of the letter that he took on Mr. Lund's behalf to the police.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Minister saying that a Member of Parliament is acting wrongly by carrying a letter at the request of a constituent to a place to which the constituent fears to go? I must insist that the Minister answers that question. I do not accept that stricture. I shall serve my constituents in a proper manner. I have had more opportunity to investigate this matter than has the Minister, and I object to his insinuation.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman did anything wrong.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister has no case.

Mr. Carlisle: I was trying to reconcile the fact that the hon. Gentleman delivered that letter with his complaint today about the method of investigation, when the man himself was complaining in advance that he would take other approaches. No other approaches were taken.
In another case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on another occasion, when he went personally with the complainant to the police station to make a complaint, when the investigation was set up the complainant just withdrew the complaint.
I repeat, however, that if the hon. Gentleman gives to the Home Office—as he says that he now will—details of the complaints and the claims that have been made to him, we shall ask for a report from the Chief Constable of Durham on each individual matter. But if the hon. Gentleman has that evidence, it is unfortunate that he did not choose to put it forward in that way, rather than to give credence to what are at this stage, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, merely allegations. Making the allegations in this way is bound to give credence to them and, therefore, to cast doubt on the police in that area.
I would rather that we should carry on in the normal way and investigate complaints which are put to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.